Dear All: Frank sent a nice email a while ago making the case for this. I think it's really unfortunate that there was no response. This lack of response to substantative proposals and questions (except, sometimes, for a response that "this was discussed and was not needed") seems to be standard operating procedure for WS-Naming and OGSA-BES. I don't think it is the right way to work if we want consensus and adoption. Ian, At 08:48 PM 11/8/2005 -0800, Frank Siebenlist wrote:
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
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org