[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Issues from SAML/XACML review
> 3. Lines 1986-8: The sentence "For data types corresponding to the types > defined in Section 3.3 of [Schema2], the xsi:type XML attribute > SHOULD also be used." is perhaps questionable because the XACML spec has > no corresponding SHOULD, and presumably this attribute profile exists to > serve interop. Do we want to retain this as a SHOULD, or would it be > more proper to turn it into a non-normative note that merely explains > the presumed relationship between DataType and any presence > of xsi:type? My reason is simply that the goal isn't purely interop with XACML but "aligning attribute use across both specs". Meaning that SAML advises use of xsi:type in this way because we don't use a second data typing approach, and by including it in this case, you can follow SAML hygeine for attribute values without complicating the XACML mapping. > It seems to me to be a sufficiently non-substantive point that it's > safe to muck with if we wish. In any case, it's probably worth > editorially clarifying that xsi:type would appear on <AttributeValue>, > not the parent <Attribute> (as opposed to the DataType > attribute, which appears on <Attribute>). Agree it could be clarified. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]