RE: [security-services] multiple occurrences of DoNotCache element

["Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>]

Agreed, I should have stuck to the core issue, which is: is there really a
problem with multiple occurrences of DoNotCache within as assertion? If so,
how should we constrain it to occur at most once within an assertion.

Your assessment is that it is not really worth the effort. I am leaning
towards that position myself, but would also like to hear TC opinions on
this issue.

- prateek



>>I'm not sure that buys you anything, since the base element, 
>>Condition, can be used as a placeholder for any extension of Condition
>>via xsi:type or element substitution. I believe it would 
>>still be legal for me to just add as many extra copies as I wanted.
>>
>>What you're after would require normative language ruling out 
>>multiple appearances of the condition, but as long as it's clear that
>> >1 is no different than 1, I'm not sure it's worth doing. It 
>>seems more complex to have to toss out such an assertion than to just
>>ignore the extras.
>>
>>-- Scott
>>