Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.

"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> Wed, 29 October 2008 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-uri-review-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8613A6D24; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994B028C340 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VteiFnhGzpoF for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f18.google.com (mail-gx0-f18.google.com [209.85.217.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5476B28C2EB for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk11 with SMTP id 11so2731602gxk.13 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.206.11 with SMTP id d11mr1408212ybg.215.1225288766358; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.138.8 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e9dffd640810290659p4514b26se56ec50b21df0de9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:59:26 -0400
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
In-Reply-To: <48F3CD44.7040803@tibco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48F3CD44.7040803@tibco.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fca3836f983b0f32
Cc: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org

Eric - I'm unable to identify any portion of this new draft that
addresses any of the previous concerns I've raised.

Unfortunately it appears that the uri-review archives are broken, as
this message of yours is the only one present, so I can't easily point
you at them.  But from my email archives, this was the discussion we
had between Feb 15 and Mar 3 of this year concerning the meaning of
"operations" and of what a jms URI actually identifies.

Mark.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-04.txt
>
> Changes to this draft are discussed here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0046.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Oct/0018.html
>
> Please advise with any feedback you might have.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Eric.
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review