RE: [security-services] Proposed addition to Section 3.3 of Conformance

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

> Since a implementation may not support all, then 
> "successfully process" could mean ignore or send fault/error. 
> I just don't know what this will achieve. 

If an implementation doesn't support them all, it's non-conformant, that's
the entire issue. I don't know why this is such a contentious problem.
"Support" means "can be configured or extended to successfully
consume/process". That's it.

It doesn't mean return a fault. It pretty much does mean ignore in this
case, because SAML consumers don't have to do anything to process an
identifier. But they can't be hardwired to return a fault just from seeing
one. That's useless. Can I produce a SOAP stack that faults on every call
and be "conformant" with SOAP (assuming it had conformance)? Of course not.

A conformance test for this is easy...you generate each possible format and
make sure that the product doesn't fault.

-- Scott