Please review: DRAFT Reg of application/samlassertion+xml
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...
> 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:
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:
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.
More information about the Ietf-types