[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Minor comments/questions onW28a-attribute-draft-03-diff
Thanks for the comments. Responses below: Philpott, Robert wrote: > 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"? Point taken. Note that core-08 contains an implementation of all the stuff proposed in this doc, and I did use appSpecific there, so I can change it. > Line 128: "in order for an attribute to be returned" -> "in order for an > attribute value to be returned" Will look at and reword as necessary. > Lines 161, 166, etc: Can we change "att-format" to > "attributename-format" or "attrname-format"? "att" seems too ambiguous. I think I used attrname-format or attribname-format in the core spec, so this is done. I'll change this to match. Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]