Issues in spec draft 08

["Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>]

Title: Issues in spec draft 08

1. Another syntax error in the <listTargetsResponse> example:
In targets 1 & 2 <capabilities> section (p. 35/36), all referenceDefinition elements are closed just before any subelement is listed.

So the following lines should be changed:

• <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”owner”/> to <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”owner”>
• <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”memberOf”/> to <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”memberOf”>
• <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”owns”/> to <referenceDefinition typeOfReference=”owns”>

2. There is some confusion with the status code "success": In all the examples, the status code for succeeded responses is set to "success". But in the spec, there are several (normative) sections where the term "succeeded" is used instead and should be replaced with "success". These are:

• 3.1.3.3.1       Requestor specifies synchronous execution (normative), Line 469: If the provider’s response specifies “status=’succeeded’”, then the provider’s …
• 3.1.3.3.3       Provider chooses synchronous execution (normative), Line 504: If the provider’s response specifies “status=‘succeeded’”, then the provider’s response ..
• 3.5.1.1.2       Response (normative), Line 875: Target. A <listTargetsResponse> that specifies “status=’succeeded’” MUST contain …

3. Just a thought: In the listTargetsResponse example (p. 35/35), the password capability is assigned to both Account and Person. But since Person owns Account based on the reference definition, this doesn't this really make sense in my opinion. Only Account should contain all the elements related to authorization. So for a more realistic scenario, the password capability should be removed for Person and Account may have an additional element password.