[security-services] RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc

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

I agree, we need to do this, it is not a bar to last call as the semantics
are sufficiently well defined.

Do we have a volunteer to write the text?

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:56 PM
> To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'
> Cc: SAML
> Subject: RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc
> 
> 
> Thanks, one thing that needs to get addressed (but could be 
> done during
> last call):
> 
> > status of "Error.Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized".
> 
> Because the error codes are QNames and are nested rather than
> dot-separated, we probably need text somewhere in the document that:
> 
> - spells out that all codes defined in the specification are 
> in the SAML
> namespace (either one, protocol I guess) and that the XML 
> must contain a
> namespace declaration that assigns it a prefix that appears in the
> status code. I'm not sure how to word this exactly, possibly wording
> similar to the SOAP section on fault codes might serve.
> 
> - consistently describes something like Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized
> as being expressed as a top code of samlp:Receiver and a subcode of
> samlp:ResourceNotRecognized. Maybe that can be put in an 
> intro paragraph
> that explains that the dot notation is a document convention for
> describing the nested code.
> 
> This probably sounds more complicated than it really is.
> 
> Also, since the top level codes are only what's in the 
> schema, a pass to
> cleanup any non-existent top level codes (like anything starting with
> "Error.") should be done.
> 
> -- Scott
>

Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf