RE: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- NameIDMappingResponse schema

["Brian Campbell" <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>]

I was going to suggest the same thing but was worried that folks would
frown on the idea :)  Really though, it may be the best option we have
at this stage.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:37 AM
> To: Scott Cantor; 'Ari Kermaier'; 'SSTC (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum --
> NameIDMappingResponse schema
> 
> Perhaps the best compromise is to publish a suggested "hack" to the
schema
> for folks who validate, one step short of normatively revving the
schema.
> 
> -Greg
> 
> On 4/26/07 11:47 AM, "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> 
> >> But still, it would be nice for validating implementations to not
have
> to
> >> introduce hacks to work around this issue. I guess it's a pretty
low
> >> priority erratum, though.
> >
> > Obviously it's errata to record. However, I don't believe OASIS has
a
> > procedure to handle normative errata, only non-normative (or stuff
you
> can
> > finesse to be non-normative). This doesn't really qualify.
> >
> > Going beyond that, there's the question of how to revise a schema,
which
> is
> > borderline impossible. Short of revving the version attribute inside
the
> > schema element, I would be at a loss as to what to do.
> >
> > Lest this turn into a schema versioning thread, let's not and say we
> did.
> > Nobody's going to change anybody's mind about versions, hints,
> namespaces vs.
> > filenames, schema lookup, etc.
> >
> > -- Scott
> >
> >