That is true of DSML 2.0, but when using the DSML 2.0 attr element in SPML 1.0, the attribute name may be a URN.
Jeff Bohren
OpenNetwork Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:]
Sent: Mon 3/15/2004 8:17 PM
To: Mishra, Prateek
Cc: OASIS Security Services TC
Subject: Re: [security-services] Attributes in SAML 2.0 and Alignment with SPML 1.0
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Mishra, Prateek wrote:
> I have received the suggestion that our treatment of attributes in SAML
> 2.0 be somewhat aligned with their treatment in SPML 1.0. As best as I
> can figure out, SPML 1.0 uses the DSML 2.0 elements <dsml:DsmlAttr> and
> <dsml:AttributeDescriptionValue> to represent X.500 attribute names and
> values as XML elements.
>
> Could anyone comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this approach?
This may be moot, but as regards attribute naming, as far as I can tell
DSML makes the naive assumption that attributes can be well-named by their
LDAP string descriptors (eg, "cn"). This is really inadequate for reasons
I wrote about in my attribute-naming proposal document.
- RL "Bob"
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
