Just checked the schema files against the spec snippets...

I just created text files from all the code snippets and diff'ed them
against the 1.1 schema files:

 

Assertion schema differences from the spec snippets: 

1.   
The only difference I encountered for the assertion
schema was that the schema file contains the revision history documentation in
the top-most annotation. The snippet contains an ellipsis in its place.  Personally,
I think the revision history comments might be quite informative to the spec
reader and we might want to consider including them.  It's only a few
lines in each.  Just a thought.

 

Protocol schema differences from the spec snippets: 

1.   
Same comment re: the revision history
applies.  

2.   
In the snippet, the XML-DSig spec schemaLocation is
just a filename.  In the schema, it is the full URL. For -assertion, the
full URL is used in both the snippets and schema file. I think the spec snippet
should be updated with the full URL.

3.   
In the schema file, the document identifier in the
annotation has "oasis-" prefixed.  The spec snippet does
not.  The schema file is incorrect in this case and should be changed

4.   
In the spec snippet for the AuthorizationDecisionQueryType
definition, the ref="saml:Evidence" element has a maxOccurs
attribute set to "1".  The 1.1 schema file does NOT have a maxOccurs
element.  The V1.0 schema DOES have a maxOccurs element set to "1".
I don't remember whether:

a.   
This was intentionally removed from the schema file
and the spec snippet did not get updated.  I don't understand why
this would be done since it would default to "1" if not specified.
Right?

b.   
This was accidentally dropped from the schema file.

c.   
Someone meant to change the attribute to "unbounded".
I don't recall anything about this and I really don't think it
should be done. Note that the child elements of Evidence permit specifying
multiple Assertion or AssertionIDReference elements.

Since it will default to "1", it's
not a major problem unless we were really doing "c".  If so,
shouldn't we put it back in the schema file?

 

 

Rob Philpott 

RSA Security Inc. 

The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 

Tel: 781-515-7115 

Mobile: 617-510-0893 

Fax: 781-515-7020 

mailto: 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]

> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:24 AM

> To: Philpott, Robert

> Subject: Re: schema snippets in core

> 

> There have been very few changes, and I've been doing them by
hand.  I

> have no idea what tool he used...  If you want to take a look
at this,

> focus on the IDType stuff and the headers.  Thanks!

> 

>     Eve

> 

> Philpott, Robert wrote:

> > Hi again - I think I recall in v1 that Phill used a tool to
ensure that

> > the schema snippets in -core are consistent with the current
actual .xsd

> > file.

> >

> >

> >

> > Have you been using this same tool or have you been
cutting/pasting?

> >

> >

> >

> > Just curious - up to now, I haven't done any verification of
the schema

> > against the snippets.  Should I try to find time to do
that?

> >

> >

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > *Rob Philpott*

> > *RSA Security Inc.*

> > /The Most Trusted Name in e-Security/

> > *Tel: 781-515-7115*

> > *Mobile**: 617-510-0893*

> > *Fax: 781-515-7020*

> > mailto:

> >

> >

> >

> 

> --

> Eve
Maler                                       
+1 781 442 3190

> Sun
Microsystems                           
cell +1 781 354 9441

> Web Technologies and
Standards              
eve.maler @ sun.com