Table 3-1 purports to constrain the behavior of an endpoint
based on soap:mustUnderstand in the input message, when wsaw:UsingAddressing is
not present. If we had a conformance clause defining conformance to
wsaw:UsingAddressing, it would be more apparent that the definition of
wsaw:UsingAddressing cannot reasonably constrain the behavior when
wsaw:UsingAddressing is not used. There are two ways to address this
First, one could remove the column “UsingAddressing
Not Present” from the table, and therefore collapse the first two rows,
removing mention of soap:mustUnderstand on input messages. This is
preferable because this spec can’t and shouldn’t attempt to
constrain the behavior of soap:mustUnderstand, especially in the case where
this spec isn’t even engaged by the presence of wsaw:UsingAddressing!
An alternative is to clarify which parts of the table are
normative or not, by adding “(non-normative)” to the title of the
last column to make it clear that we’re restating for the reader’s
convenience behavior defined outside this specification.