[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: comments: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02
[This is a resend] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com> Date: Aug 1, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: comments: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02 To: oasis sstc <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org> Document identifier: draft-sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-02 Previous comments are quoted below for context. Unquoted comments refer to the new document above. On 7/10/06, Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com> wrote: > Document identifier: sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-cd-01 > > - [line 2] s/SAML/SAML V2.0/ [line 2] s/SAML 2.0/SAML V2.0/ > - [line 155] s^http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/^http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/^ [line 159] s^http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/^http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/^ On 7/30/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > I'm uploading new drafts of all the documents I had in public review later, > but a few responses to these comments inline... > > > Document identifier: sstc-saml-protocol-ext-thirdparty-cd-01 > > > > Errata: > > > > - [line 134] s/SAML/SAML:2.0/ > > That's incorrect. 2.0 in a namespace means the namespace was introduced in > SAML 2.0. This one wasn't, therefore there is no version in the namespace. > It does not mean SAML version. Okay, but this will make it difficult to distinguish between SAML V1.1 URIs and SAML V2.0 URIs. > > - [lines 79--81] Does line 3317 of SAMLCore apply if no Format > > attribute is provided? If so, perhaps this requires some > > clarification in the current profile. > > Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with this document. Okay. > > - [line 128] The syntax of this attribute should agree with the syntax > > used in the X.509 Attribute Sharing profile, that is, both profiles > > should use the same syntax, either 'supportsRespondTo' or > > 'hasRespondToSupport'. It doesn't matter which, but the two should be > > consistent. > > It was actually supposed to be "hasSupport" because once it was by itself in > the separate document, the XML namespace alone tells you what's being > supported. In the interest of not sending this back to public review, I'm > leaving it alone, and that should trump any other considerations, including > consistency. That's too bad. It introduces precedent that other people will copy. Some additional comments: - [line 78--79] Remove line break between "section 8.3.6". - [line 124] s/SAML V2.0 metadata/SAML V2.0 metadata [SAML2Meta]/ - Add standard "Acknowledgments" and "Notices" sections. Thanks, Tom
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]