Ok, Pablo, just a quick answer on the way to a well deserved end-of-day beer with my co-workers!

>>Ok, don't take my word for good. Go to a SOAP or XML forum, start saying you've been working with SOAP 3 and see what you get back. And no, till now it has not been named SOAP3 Beta.
>
>Well I missed the toolkit word. I dont' understand what are you trying to say. But see now this is released: Microsoft SOAP Toolkit 3.0 at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=40378

I know what SOAP Toolkit 3 is, I just advised that you souldn't insist to rename it as SOAP 3. When I read Michel's article I got a hell of a fright: "Hey! what happened to SOAP 2?" (not to mention SOAP 1.3). Then I realised what he was talking about.

>>If you say that your Web Service requires, from the consumer side, to use a particular tool from a vendor and to use the underlying protocol as an information carrier, then you're failing to comply to basic guidelines.
>
>Not agree, well you are too academic here. I see SOAP as a way to achieve things, no matter what I put or need to put there.

Sorry, I may look academic, but I'm not being academic. SOAP is not a way to achieve things, as you put it, is a way to achieve things by ensuring or at least enabling application-to-application interoperability on the Web. HTTP-Cookies are not only not needed, they are undesirable.

Now on my way to my tapa... ;)