Some minor typos in the Profile 02g Spec

[Thomas Wisniewski <Thomas.Wisniewski@entrust.com>]

Title: Some minor typos in the Profile 02g Spec

FYI...

- Line 523: "includea"
- Line 581: "4.1" should be "4.1.5"
- Line 1355, 1387: "55" should be "5"
- Section 4.1.3.5: could mention that IDP Discovery can be used (to be consistent with 4.1.3.2 where this option is mentioned).

A question on Saml Conformance 3.3, where it mentions that all attribute name format identifiers, all name identifier format identifiers, and all consent identifiers MUST be implemented. I assume this means that an implementation must be able to handle the request for these but not necessarily to respond with an appropriate response. E.g., an implementation may not support windows domain qualified names at all. Is the spec saying that for conformance, if a request is made for a windows DQN, the responder must be able to respond with this.  Simlar examples apply for attribute ids and for consent requests.

Thanks, Tom.