RE: Propose resolution of issue 191

Looks good - two minor (editorial) comments:

1) It seems there is a 'negation' missing as in "...does contain an
>>in<<valid SOAP envelope..." which can be found in the paragraph:

"The message is deemed to have been intended for the local SOAP node,
but is deemed badly formed: ill-formed XML, contains a serialized DTD,
and/or does contain a valid SOAP envelope."

2) Might be good to be consistent about saying "SOAP message" as in "XML
infoset of a SOAP message" rather than "envelope Infoset" and other
variants. In general, I think we mean "message" when we talk about the
SOAP message construct.

Thanks!

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>This note is in fulfillment of my action item to propose a 
>resolution of
>issue 191 [1].  I believe that this resolution is reasonably 
>complete and
>correct, but I suggest that someone who is more familiar with the HTTP
>binding than I am doublecheck the suggested changes to the 
>state tables for
>that binding (basically, these are to ensure that a message 
>received with a
>DTD in its serialization causes the same fault is any other malformed
>message.)