RE: Issues to be closed at the Sept 4 Concall

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Eve wrote:
> I'd like us to reconsider the following issue:
> 
> DS-4-05: SingleSchema
>    I may have missed any discussion of the rationale for 
> having one vs. two 
> schemas.  Understanding that assertions can be used entirely 
> without the 
> request/response layer in some scenarios, I'm willing to 
> believe that two 
> is the right answer, but I'd like us to document our 
> rationale because 
> there are costs to having two namespace names, defining things like 
> majorVersion and minorVersion twice, etc.

First, that is the rationale, so perhaps we just need to say so somewhere.
I'm not sure where because we decided that the spec would not say "why" and
it clearly is not a security consideration. 

Second, I'm confused about your concerns. You do understand that the
protocol schema imports the assertion schema? I thought we were making
practially everything Global, so the definition would only appear in the
assertion schema and be referenced in the protocol schema.

If documenting the rationale is all that is needed, I would still like to
close the issue. Can some editor commit to putting it in their document?

Hal