Fwd: comments: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

[This is a resend]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: comments: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02
To: oasis sstc <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>


Document identifier: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02

Previous comments are quoted below for context.  Unquoted comments
refer to the new document above.

On 7/10/06, Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Document identifier: sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-cd-01
>
> - [line 2] s/SAML/SAML V2.0/

[line 2] s/SAML 2.0/SAML V2.0/

> - [line 155] s^http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/^http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/^

[line 159] s^http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/^http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/^

On 7/30/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> I'm uploading new drafts of all the documents I had in public review later,
> but a few responses to these comments inline...
>
> > Document identifier: sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-cd-01
> >
> > Errata:
> >
> > - [line 134] s/SAML/SAML:2.0/
>
> That's incorrect. 2.0 in a namespace means the namespace was introduced in
> SAML 2.0. This one wasn't, therefore there is no version in the namespace.
> It does not mean SAML version.

Okay, but this will make it difficult to distinguish between SAML V1.1
URIs and SAML V2.0 URIs.

> > - [lines 79--81] Does line 3317 of SAMLCore apply if no Format
> > attribute is provided?  If so, perhaps this requires some
> > clarification in the current profile.
>
> Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with this document.

Okay.

> > - [line 128] The syntax of this attribute should agree with the syntax
> > used in the X.509 Attribute Sharing profile, that is, both profiles
> > should use the same syntax, either 'supportsRespondTo' or
> > 'hasRespondToSupport'.  It doesn't matter which, but the two should be
> > consistent.
>
> It was actually supposed to be "hasSupport" because once it was by itself in
> the separate document, the XML namespace alone tells you what's being
> supported. In the interest of not sending this back to public review, I'm
> leaving it alone, and that should trump any other considerations, including
> consistency.

That's too bad.  It introduces precedent that other people will copy.

Some additional comments:

- [line 78--79] Remove line break between "section 8.3.6".

- [line 124] s/SAML V2.0 metadata/SAML V2.0 metadata [SAML2Meta]/

- Add standard "Acknowledgments" and "Notices" sections.

Thanks,
Tom