I agree, we need to do this, it is not a bar to last call as the semantics
are sufficiently well defined.
Do we have a volunteer to write the text?
Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
781 245 6996 x227
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:56 PM
> To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'
> Cc: SAML
> Subject: RE: Missing changes to schema and core-doc
>
>
> Thanks, one thing that needs to get addressed (but could be
> done during
> last call):
>
> > status of "Error.Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized".
>
> Because the error codes are QNames and are nested rather than
> dot-separated, we probably need text somewhere in the document that:
>
> - spells out that all codes defined in the specification are
> in the SAML
> namespace (either one, protocol I guess) and that the XML
> must contain a
> namespace declaration that assigns it a prefix that appears in the
> status code. I'm not sure how to word this exactly, possibly wording
> similar to the SOAP section on fault codes might serve.
>
> - consistently describes something like Receiver.ResourceNotRecognized
> as being expressed as a top code of samlp:Receiver and a subcode of
> samlp:ResourceNotRecognized. Maybe that can be put in an
> intro paragraph
> that explains that the dot notation is a document convention for
> describing the nested code.
>
> This probably sounds more complicated than it really is.
>
> Also, since the top level codes are only what's in the
> schema, a pass to
> cleanup any non-existent top level codes (like anything starting with
> "Error.") should be done.
>
> -- Scott
>
