RE: SOAPAction Proposal

My problem with SOAPAction (as it is defined in SOAP 1.1) is the use of the
word MUST, as in:

    An HTTP client must use this header field when issuing a SOAP HTTP
Request.

I can't see why this is required. While I can imagine that SOAPAction is
useful in some situations, I can't see any basis for claiming that it is
always necessary. If a provider of a service requires the SOAPAction header,
then they can describe their service as requiring it (e.g., in WSDL). For
those of us that have no use for SOAPAction, I see no reason why my HTTP
SOAP clients should be compelled to include the SOAPAction header.

We don't use SOAPAction in any of our SOAP implementations.

The only basis I can see for requiring the SOAPAction header is some attempt
at forward compatibility (i.e., in case you need to use it someday). If I
did need SOAPAction someday, then I would simply publish a new endpoint that
described the requirement for the SOAPAction header.

I suggest that the SOAP 1.1 requirement that the SOAPAction header "MUST" be
toned down to a "MAY".

Andy Neilson