[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Comments on Bindings and Profiles doc - Draft 06
Even though mostly editorial, I'm fwd'ing to the list for discussion/finalization: -----Original Message----- From: John Hughes [mailto:john.hughes@entegrity.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:19 AM To: Prateek Mishra; Philpott, Robert; Eve Maler Subject: Comments on Bindings and Profiles doc - Draft 06 Prateek/Rob/Eve, its some time since I've looked at this document - but on going through the Profiles section I've up with the following comments - most of which are minor (which is why I did not sent it to the list). General: - to the HTTP purist the HTTP examples are wrong. For instance on line 460 it should be: GET <path>?TARGET=<Target> <HTTP-Version> The HTTP GET header does not include the protocol nor the host name - Throughout the doc there seems to be spurious "..." - as in line 460. I guess in this case its supposed to represent a space. Whilst in other cases (which is the more accepted norm), represents missing headers or components. 4.1.1.4 line 480. The location field should use the https protocol to be consistent with the text on 495-498 and to match line 503. 4.1.1.4 line 486. Nothing explains what the "..." mean. In addition how do you delimit the TARGET and SAMLart query variables. Nothing is said. Its usual to use "&". 4.1.1.8 line 565. Why have Byte1Byte2 defined. It is not further on. Would it not be simpler to have defined TypeCode := 0x0001 4.1.1.8 line 592. Nothing is defined about the use or purpose of AssertionHandle in this section Hope this helps John --------------------------------------------- John Hughes SVP and CTO Entegrity Solutions www.entegrity.com john.hughes@entegrity.com Home Office Tel: +44 (0) 1525 380160 Mobile: +44 (0) 7768 055070 --------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]