RE: NHIN Exchange <Subject> question

[Eric Heflin <eheflin@medicity.com>]

Scott,

Thanks for the fast response.

Here's the ambiguity: Since a SAML assertion can have multiple <Subject>s, the quoted text ambiguous since it is not clearly specifying which <Subject> is being referenced as being required.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cantor, Scott E. [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 9:27 AM
To: Eric Heflin; saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: NHIN Exchange <Subject> question

> Interpretation A (Only one <Subject> element is required): One 
> interpretation is that a SAML Assertion with an <AttributeStatement> 
> element does not need a <Subject> element -inside- any child 
> <Assertion> elements containing the <AttributeStatement>, but that 
> such a SAML Assertion does require a <Subject> element at the root 
> <Assertion>/<Subject> level.

That directly contradicts the text you're quoting.

>          <!-- Does not contain a subject, because there is one in the
>             encompassing assertion and this assertion is about the 
> same subject ->

There is no relationship between those assertions, so they certainly don't inherit anything between them.

> Interpretation B

That is the one that actually follows the text of the spec.

-- Scott