Andreas contributed these via email:

[I would have put these in a tracker but I wasn't sure which one.]

1. Since the document defines profiles according to GFD.59 it should
reference it. Also the document should follow profile conventions by
listing and numbering the extensibility points and compliance
statements. I think GFD.72 is a good example to follow.

2. The Introduction starting with "WS-Naming is built in four parts"
needs updating due to the section re-organization at GGF18.

3. Some statements in the profile sub-sections are not appropriate. For
example, in section 4.1 "INSTANCEs conforming to WS-Naming MAY conform
to the Endpoint Identifier Profile." is really a meta-statement about
the way that the different profiles may be combined. (I think Tom also
mentioned something like this at GGF18 but it wasn't discussed further.)
So how about moving such statements to a separate section, e.g. "Profile
Relationships."

4. When conforming to Section 4.3 there is no defined way (optional or
otherwise) to determine whether the wsa:Address field of an EPR is used
as an EPI by only inspecting the EPR. I think being able to do this
would be useful to clients.