Re: [provision] Spec issues #22 and #23: AddRequest targetID,con tainerID and psoID.

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

Okay; I can go along with that approach to containerID.  It is 
consistent and it is explicit.

I still don't know whether I'm comfortable with the larger issue (that 
is, addRequest's choice of targetID, containerID and psoID), but I'll 
take a look at XSD 18.  This certainly helps.

Bohren, Jeffrey wrote:

>The containerID must always be included in the PSO ID if there is a
>container. There would not be a container for root PSOs or PSOs on a target
>for which containment is not supported.
>
>If you look at various tree APIs, you will see that the semantic for
>creating a top level node is often to create a node without a parent. This
>is a very common idiom and should not cause too much confusion.
>
>  
>