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