You're not missing the point at all. Just happened to catch us in the middle of a work in progress. :-) The requirement for a shared targetNamespace is a temporary limitation. The ability to set the target namespace and even the target service name will likely be specified via the binding.remote definition. This same requirement exists within a single instance if you want one application to talk to another with a different namespace. We have considered using the binding.sca defintion in the SCA assembly spec to address both cases (effectively replacing binding.remote). If you have an opinion one way or the other on this, now is the perfect time to share!