Re: LC review of WS-Addressing

Amy,

I checked the editors' draft at [1] and it isn't clear that ONMR is not
currently a requirement, it certainly does contain a "MUST" in it. I
guess this has not been implemented yet or I have the wrong URI for the
editors' draft. 8-)

Jacek

[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Service_OperationName

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 12:17 -0400, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:05:20 +0200
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
> > Second, discussed in [3], is about action being required in all
> > WS-Addressing-compliant messages. I believe that the intent of the WSDL
> > Operation Name Mapping Requirement (ONMR) is that message bodies
> > identify the operation so we don't need action URI (unless that is the
> > extension that satisfies the ONMR) because WS-Addressing RECOMMENDS that
> > the action URI identify an operation input, output or fault.
> 
> [much snippage]
> 
> This is just to clarify: the "Operation Name Mapping Requirement" is no
> longer a requirement in WSDL 2.0.  It is now a "best practice."  When
> mentioning the ONMR by name, it might be best to clarify this point (or
> it might be useful to determine what the new label for this part of the
> spec will be, and use that).
> 
> Amy!

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:21:09 UTC