[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Metadata errata items
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > - Absence of NameIDFormat > > I think we should explicitly state that the absence of this element doesn't > imply anything about the formats supported. In other words, listing none > doesn't mean you don't support any. If this isn't how people interpreted it, > let me know, but that's what I meant. Other metadata elements are similarly confusing. For example, the normative language surrounding <md:AttributeProfile> is exactly the same as <md:NameIDFormat>. Likewise, the intended use of <saml:Attribute> is unclear. If we're going to clarify one, we should clarify them all. In contrast, the <md:RequestedAttribute> is very useful. The addition of the isRequired attribute permits <md:RequestedAttribute> to be used unequivocally. > Proposal is to add text at line 661: > > "Omitting this element does not imply that any given format is supported or > unsupported; it means any such knowledge is exchanged out of band." Or clarified in a separate metadata profile? Tom
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]