[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [security-services] RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc
I agree, we need to do this, it is not a bar to last call as the semantics are sufficiently well defined. Do we have a volunteer to write the text? Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng. Principal Scientist VeriSign Inc. pbaker@verisign.com 781 245 6996 x227 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:56 PM > To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip' > Cc: SAML > Subject: RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc > > > 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 >
Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC