Please review: DRAFT Reg of application/samlassertion+xml

[Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com]

> 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.


good catch, thanks.


> 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.
> ]]


how 'bout this build:


        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" represents any XML namespace 
             prefix that maps to a version-specific SAML assertion XML 
             namespace URI, as defined by the appropriate version-specific
             SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).

             With SAMLv2.0 specifically, the root element of the returned 
             object may be either <saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>
,
             where "saml" is an XML namspace prefix that maps to the SAMLv2.0
             assertion namespace URI:  urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion.


?

thanks,

JeffH