Re: [security-services] New Templates for SAML 2.1

[Rainer Hoerbe <rainer@hoerbe.at>]

I was thinking of the issue that, In SAML2-core, there are the section titles "2. SAML Assertions" and "2.3 Assertions". It should be made unambiguous to reference SAML Assertions for derivative standards. Renaming 2.3 "Assertions" to "Assertion Elements" is probably good enough.

Anyway this is a minor issue compared to other dependency issues in SOAP. E.g., SOAP messages signed according to WS-Security, containing SAML 2.0 assertions signed according to section 5 "SAML and XML Sig" in SAML2-core. Alining security considerations for both documents will be fun for developers.

- Rainer


 

> Scott has brought up inter-document references before as well but I don't understand the issue.  Any reference is going to have the document and the section number in it, so it seems like the only impact breaking up the documents would have on the reference is to decrease the section number (so instead of section 5 in the bigger document it becomes section 3 in the split document).  That doesn't seem like much of a win.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
>> Would it make sense to split "Assertions and Protocols" into "Assertions" and
>> "Protocols"? That would factor out the part in which WS-Security depends.