New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata

I agree with Tom that nested expressions is the way we should go to resolve this issue. We've been working on a slightly different variant to handle this that is attached.

It proposes the following changes:
1.        States that the Addressing assertion applies to the endpoint subject
2.        Prohibits abstract (interface/portType) attachment points
3.        The Addressing assertion without any qualifiers (nested assertions) means that the use of WS-Addressing is required and has no restrictions.
4.        The AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses assertions indicate that anonymous or non-anonymous responses respectfully are required.
5.        The AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses assertions cannot be used in the same alternative.  There semantics conflict with each other.
6.        Removes wsp:Ignorable example
7.        Editorial work to clean up the examples to be consistent with the assertion semantics.

This proposal has the following benefits
*         The simplest case (addressing is required and may be used without restrictions) is represented by just the Addressing assertion
*         The assertions express requirements as suggested by the WS-Policy WG
*         An endpoint can clearly indicate what response are and are not allowed
*         No new assertions added.  A subject that requires mixed-mode responses can use the Addressing assertion with no qualifiers
*         Authoring policies that work with Intersection is straight-forward to do
*         The assertions compose well with other assertions that depend on addressing (ex. MakeConnection would be used in conjunction the Addressing assertion qualified by the NonAnonymousResponses assertion)