Please review: DRAFT Reg of application/samlassertion+xml
Graham Klyne
GK at ninebynine.org
Mon Sep 6 17:41:16 CEST 2004
At 09:06 01/09/04 -0700, Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com wrote:
>Additional information:
>
> Magic number(s):
> In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
> particular, the XML root element of the returned object will be
> <saml:Assertion>, where "saml" maps to a version-specific SAML
> assertion namespace, as defined by the appropriate SAML "core"
> specification (see bibliography). In the case of SAMLv2.0, the
> root element of the returned object may be either
> <saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>, where "saml"
> maps to the SAMLv2.0 assertion namespace:
> urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion
I'm a bit concerned that this might be read as asserting that a
application/samlassertion+xml object must use the specific namespace prefix
"saml", rather than any namesp[ace prefix that maps to a SAML namespace URI.
Assuming this is not being claimed, I'd suggest:
[[
Additional information:
Magic number(s):
In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
particular, the XML root element of the returned object will be
<saml:Assertion>, where "saml" as any namespace prefix that maps
to a version-specific SAML assertion namespace URI, as defined by
the appropriate SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).
In the case of SAMLv2.0, the root element of the returned object
may be either <saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>,
where "saml" is a prefix that maps to the SAMLv2.0 assertion
namespace URI: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion.
]]
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
More information about the Ietf-types
mailing list