Re: FW: a question about mustunderstand.

Jay wrote:
>section 4.2.3 ---->
>Tagging elements in this manner assures that this change in semantics will
>not be silently (and, presumably, erroneously) ignored by those who may
not
>fully understand it.
>CONCLUSION 5: THIS IMPLIES THAT THE INTENT OF SOAP WHEN A HEADER ELEMENT
>WITH
>MUSTUNDERSTAND = 1 IS NOT PROCESSED BECAUSE OF AN INVALID OR
>NONEXISTENT
>ACTOR IS A FAULT RETURNED.

As much as I want to change the behavior of the spec
I think conclusion #5 is wrong.  This mandate of not ignoring
MU headers is limited to the processing that goes on _within_
one SOAP node not to the entire message path.
On a side note, there is no way to distinguish between a valid
actor that was never hit and an invalid actor - both end up with
the same end result - it's ignored.

-Dug