RE: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?

Just testing my own understanding, but I think this is because [source endpoint], [reply endpoint], and [fault endpoint] each contain a destination IRI of their own.
 
The destination is not the same kind of thing as the other three.
 
Putting it another way, the [destination]'s EPR is the one containing all of these pieces.
 
Please, someone correct me if I've misunderstood.
 
Tony Rogers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Andreas Bjärlestam (HF/EAB) 
	Sent: Thu 10-Mar-05 17:01 
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?
	
	


	Why is the [destination] defined as an IRI while the [source endpoint], [reply endpoint] and [fault endpoint] are defined as endpoint references? Why can they not be treated equally? Is there a fundamental difference?
	
	.Andreas