RE: [security-services] errata: misuse of strongly matches

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> I agree with your definition of "identical" but I think it only
> applies to two elements of type NameIDType (after decryption of
> course).  I don't know what it means for two elements of type
> BaseIDAbstractType to be identical, let alone two elements of type
> AssertionType.

I don't agree, it's either DOM equal, Infoset, or it's probably untestable
and impractical.

> There's also the issue of the Format attribute.  The <NameID> element
> defaults to Format "unspecified", so what if one element has no Format
> attribute and the other is "unspecified"?  Two such <NameID> elements
> might be called equivalent.  Is equivalence good enough on lines
> 2600--2601 of SAMLCore and 1299--1301 of SAMLProf?

IMNSHO, no. It's a slippery slope.

-- Scott