RE: [security-services] A "final" proposal on status codes

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

> I was under the impression that all the comments on the core 
> document were to take place on the security services list.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear here at all. I submitted several proposals
to the SAML list based on similar ideas floating on the SOAP list.
Nobody said anything until last concall, when I was asked to "pick one I
liked and submit it as an alternative to what's in the document now", so
I did that.

I didn't heavily comment on the choice I made other than to say that it
was what the XMLP WG had apparently picked for SOAP (which was the most
relevant issue to me, since the whole point originally was to try and
align with it). Yes, it is recursive, and yes, it uses elements to
contain code values. There are advantages and disadvantages to any
choices you make.

There has been no discussion about the XML alternatives in these
proposals on the SAML side, only on the XMLP side. None of those
discussions relate to SAML at all, merely the sylistic issues associated
with an extended status structure.

-- Scott