RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

> assign [message id] with the 'first' one and then fault on (processing) 
> the second one. 

which given SOAP headers are a bag, is basically tossing a coin.

> The second MUST there does suggest to me that we should have an assertion 
> to check that there is a RelatesTo with RelationshipType=reply in the 
> response, and I think that the contents could be any of the input message 
> ids or the unspecified message uri.

sounds like we have to do more work for this edge case.

Maybe we could either:

1) remove this test case
2) make it informational with no assertion for the MUST
3) add assertions to check it's a MessageId that came in the message (sigh)
4) shove it back to the WG with a "must try harder" comment (big-sigh)

I vote for (2) as (3) and (4) are a slippery slope

Paul