Minor comments/questions on W28a-attribute-draft-03-diff

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

Line 126: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:valuetype-format:appSpecific

-          In other definitions, we use "urn:...:unspecified" to refer to undefined or application-specific uses.  Why aren't we using "unspecified" rather than "appSpecific"?

 

Line 128: "in order for an attribute to be returned" -> "in order for an attribute value to be returned"

 

Lines 161, 166, etc: Can we change "att-format" to "attributename-format" or "attrname-format"?  "att" seems too ambiguous.

 

Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer 
RSA Security Inc.
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com