Please review: DRAFT Reg of application/samlassertion+xml

Graham Klyne GK at ninebynine.org
Tue Sep 21 11:09:29 CEST 2004


At 09:28 20/09/04 -0700, Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com wrote:
>Ok, how about this...
>
>
>Magic number(s):
>     In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
>     particular, the XML root element of the returned object will be
>     <Assertion>, and will be in one of the version-specific SAML
>     assertion XML namespaces, 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" represents any XML namspace prefix that maps to the
>     SAMLv2.0 assertion namespace URI:
>
>        urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion.

I think the intent here is pretty clear and correct, but I find myself 
fretting a little at the wording in case of possible misunderstanding, so 
here's my suggestion for the 1st para:

[[
Magic number(s):
     In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
     particular, the XML root element of the returned object will
     have a namespace-qualified name with:
     - local name: Assertion
     - namespace URI: one of the version-specific SAML assertion
       XML namespace URIs, as defined by the appropriate version-
       specific SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).
]]

I'm not sure that this is better;  mainly, I aimed to avoid the (very
slight) implication that the root element would always be introduced
by the literal <Assertion>.  In any case, your 2nd paragraph makes the
situation clear, so use or ignore my thoughts as you see fit.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact




More information about the Ietf-types mailing list