Frank, et al, Let me make sure I understand your question. When you say "on the wire" do you mean "must be present in the soap header"? If so, then the discussion was to change the document to state that the endpoint receiving the message MUST NOT assume that the header contains the abstract name. The "endpoint" in this case refers to an endpoint that is being "named". Thus, it cannot be used for dispatch. I cannot recall who suggested this (it might have been Tom, I cannot recall though). The motivation was that because not all elements of the WS-Address are guaranteed to be included in the header by all tooling. If not, what do you mean by "on the wire"? Andrew -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Siebenlist Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:49 PM To: ogsa-wg@ggf.org; ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-naming-wg] service/resource identifier on the wire? In the past I've advocated that we need an AbstractName equivalent as a service/resource identifier on the wire, i.e. present in the soap message. During the last conference call it was mentioned that at the ws-naming F2F it was discussed that this was not needed. Could someone explain what the arguments were? What the discussion was about exactly? (maybe the f2f-minutes would be nice too ... hint, hint ;-) ) Thanks, Frank. -- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory