RE: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- NameIDMappingResponse schema

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

> I was going to suggest the same thing but was worried that folks would
> frown on the idea :)  Really though, it may be the best option we have
> at this stage.

I could also be wrong, BTW, about the errata rules. There used to be no
process; now that there is one, what are the constraints for producing one?

I think it makes very little sense to say you can have official errata but
they can't *really* change the spec. Typos happen, you can't expect all of
them to be X number of words away from a MUST.

From a conformance standpoint, it seems reasonable to me that any statement
wrt conformance be applicable to the state of a spec and its errata as of a
certain date.

-- Scott