[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: SAML Profile StatusCode
Hi Steven, I think this is better than trying to mirror the XACML error.However, I am a bit worried about the fuzziness between Requester and Responder. I am afraid that there will be follow up questions to the TC later asking for clarifications for where the line is drawn between these two. I'd rather avoid the topic. ;-)
Is it necessary to differentiate between these to at all? I don't remember these details of SAML currently. Also, can there be additional details about the error? If so, the differentiation may not be needed.
In any case, I am ok with how it is in your proposal if this the usual way of doing it in SAML.
Regarding the keywords, the recent post by OASIS of the keyword guidelines is in my fresh memory, so I noticed that the proposed text mixes the RFC and ISO conventions. SHALL is ISO convention and MAY is RFC convention. We should use one consistently. Since the document appears to follow the RFC convention as it is now, we should replace SHALL with MUST. I can do that if you don't want to change the text otherwise.
Best regards, Erik On 2014-04-03 01:07, Steven Legg wrote:
Hi Erik, On 3/04/2014 1:31 AM, Erik Rissanen wrote:I hadn't noticed the post about the SAML profile. I think it makes sense to have the SAML status code refer to SAML layer related errors. Do you have a proposal for how to change the text?Here is a suggestion for replacing the text following "<samlp:StatusCode> [Required]"in Section 4.11.The <samlp:StatusCode> element is a component of the <samlp:Status> element in the<samlp:Response>.In the response to an <xacml-samlp:XACMLAuthzDecisionQuery>, the value of the<samlp:StatusCode> XML attribute is determined as follows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:SuccessThis value for the <samlp:StatusCode> XML attribute SHALL be used if and only if at least one XACMLAuthzDecision Assertion (i.e., <saml:Assertion> element) is present. Note that an XACMLAuthzDecision Assertion may indicate XACML errors.urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:RequesterThis value for the <samlp:StatusCode> XML attribute SHOULD be used if an error in the original <xacml-samlp:XACMLAuthzDecisionQuery> prevented evaluation by theXACML PDP. urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:ResponderThis value for the <samlp:StatusCode> XML attribute SHOULD be used if the XACML PDP attempted evaluation of the original <xacml-samlp:XACMLAuthzDecisionQuery>,but was unable to produce a valid XACMLAuthzDecision Assertion.Other SAML status codes MAY be used where appropriate when there are noXACMLAuthzDecision Assertions present.I used "SHOULD" for the "Requestor" and "Responder" statuses because it is sometimes fuzzy where the fault lies and to give implementors wriggle room to choose another SAML status code where it would make more sense without us having to be prescriptiveabout every single one of them.The SAML <Status> element is a mandatory child element of the SAML <Response> elementso one should be provided in the example in Section 4.11. I suggest: <samlp:Status><samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/></samlp:Status> immediately following the <samlp:Response> start-tag. Regards, Steven