RE: [security-services] Status of and recommendation on SAML vers ioninfo

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

> I had been advocating that the namespace URI (a) not be a "real" web 
> resource/filename, and (b) not contain version information.  However, 
> common practice has overtaken me on both counts:

The only reason the version number is in there at present is
to avoid confusion as the schema changes. I have always expected
that we would go for a versionless URI for the spec version.

I see this as being equivalent to the type of processing that
IANA does on an RFC just before issue, adding in the assigned 
names and numbers etc.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/saml/1.0/saml-assertion.xsd
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/saml/1.0/saml-protocol.xsd

This would be OK for me.

	Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf