New Issue: Complications due to wsaw:UsingAddressing and wsaw:Anonymous on endpoint

The wsaw:UsingAddressing element can appear on the binding and the 
endpoint (port)  of the wsdl.  Similarly, the associated wsaw:anonymous 
element can appear on the binding or endpoint.

Bearing this in mind, the following points require clarification in the 
WSDL specification:
1. Is it acceptable to specify wsaw:Anonymous on the endpoint if the 
corresponding wsaw:UsingAddressing is specified on the binding?
2. The spec indicates that it is not possible to specify 
wsaw:UsingAddressing on the port if it is already specified on the binding 
("Alternatively, the wsaw:UsingAddressing element MAY be instead included 
as a child on the wsdl20:endpoint (or wsdl1.1:port)..."). 
So if the binding does not specify WS-Addressing, it is possible to 
override this at the endpoint.  However, there is no mechanism to do the 
converse (i.e. to switch off the requirement for WS-Addressing at the 
endpoint if it is defined at the binding).  Why are we allowing one 
without the other?

As an alternative (and faster ;o) ) resolution to this, I suggest (as has 
already been suggested) that we remove the ability to associated the 
wsaw:UsingAddressing and wsaw:Anonymous from the endpoint altogether 
**unless there is at least one compelling use case for this**.   This 
would considerably simplify the specification and remove unnecessary 
complication for implementations.  (I don't believe that we fully 
appreciated the repercussions of allowing these elements to be associated 
with the port when this decision was first made.)  Note that in the rare 
event that the wsaw:UsingAddressing element and its associated 
wsaw:anonymous element need to be associated on a per port basis, in order 
to reuse existing bindings, this can be done by creating a binding for 
each of the different binding behaviours (exactly what bindings are for 
anyhow...).

Katy