>>Use of HTTP headers to carry information that should go in the SOAP envelope (cf. Michel's first article on this issue).
>
>SOAP header and HTTP header are two different things.

Sorry, Michel, but I'm failing to comprehend the purpose of your assertion in this context. Anyway, your first article did a good job in showing how to implement a standard compliant method of passing support/control information within the SOAP envelope (you demonstrated the case of user authentication, but there are uses for it, of course). In this respect, your 2nd article seems regressive to me.

>>I wouldn't insist in SOAP3 designation. There is not such a thing, even in MS terminology.
>
>Well, as I said, it's still in Beta. The release is expected soon.

Microsoft won't call it SOAP 3, ever.