[security-services] RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc

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

Thanks, one thing that needs to get addressed (but could be done during
last call):

> status of "Error.Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized".

Because the error codes are QNames and are nested rather than
dot-separated, we probably need text somewhere in the document that:

- spells out that all codes defined in the specification are in the SAML
namespace (either one, protocol I guess) and that the XML must contain a
namespace declaration that assigns it a prefix that appears in the
status code. I'm not sure how to word this exactly, possibly wording
similar to the SOAP section on fault codes might serve.

- consistently describes something like Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized
as being expressed as a top code of samlp:Receiver and a subcode of
samlp:ResourceNotRecognized. Maybe that can be put in an intro paragraph
that explains that the dot notation is a document convention for
describing the nested code.

This probably sounds more complicated than it really is.

Also, since the top level codes are only what's in the schema, a pass to
cleanup any non-existent top level codes (like anything starting with
"Error.") should be done.

-- Scott