RE: [security-services-comment] Public Comment

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> 1.	The element <Statement> has been re-arranged inside 
> section 2.6 Advice on page 24.

This is a mistake. I didn't catch it in my last edit, but I'll correct it
now.

> 2.	If I understood this right, RequestAbstractType is of 
> Request messages, while StatusResponseType is the base type 
> for Response, they should be have equal right conceptually. 
> However, in section 3 SAML Protocols, sub-section 3.2.1.1 
> Complex Type StatusResponseType becomes a sub-section of 
> 3.2.1 Complex Type RequestAbstractType, does it indicate 
> something that I missed?

This mistake I did catch and is already corrected in the post-CD draft.

> 3.	the <Request> element is only mentioned once in section 
> 3.2.1, v2.0 within a &#8220;Note&#8221;, also in 
> &#8220;Binding for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup 
> Language (SAML) V2.0&#8221; p12, section 3.2.3.5 Example, the 
> <Request> element has been replaced by 
> <&#8230;AttributeQuery&#8230;>, if it is the intension of 
> v2.0 to get rid of <Request> as defined in v1.0, 
> wouldn&#8217;t it be better to explicitly address this in 
> section 3.2.1? 

Also a good catch, thanks. And yes, <Request> per se is gone.

-- Scott