Discussed during the AWG meeting - agreed to the proposed change.

We discussed this again and determined that a better approach would be for the CM facet to refer to optional CUs that the CM supports. This will require some additional CUs to be entered for all the options that a CM might support (e.g., uni and bi directions, client server vs. pubsub, etc).

Added separate CUs for CM support of each connection type and added them to the CM 2024 Facet with only the unidirectional CU mandatory (Is Optional = False). Removed language about supporting optional connection types from the UAFX ConnectionManager Base ComplianceUnit.

We discussed these changes in an AWG meeting.

We reviewed Bob’s proposed conformance units and facets. We ultimately decided that no additional conformance units are needed, and no normative specification changes are needed. Better wording is needed in "UAFX ConnectionManager Base". Add "for any subtypes of ConnectionConfigurationSetType that are supported" to the CU.

If you do not want to support bidirectional connections, you should simply not put inputs AND outputs in the same FE. Once you put inputs and outputs in the same FE (or the FE hierarchy), you are indicating that bidirectional connections are supported by this FE.

The ConformanceUnit description was updated as proposed by the AWG on 01/22/2025.