Re: [security-services] Minor comments/questions onW28a-attribute-draft-03-diff

Thanks for the comments.  Responses below:

Philpott, Robert wrote:

> Line 126: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:valuetype-format:appSpecific
> 
> -          In other definitions, we use "urn:...:unspecified" to refer 
> to undefined or application-specific uses.  Why aren't we using 
> "unspecified" rather than "appSpecific"?

Point taken.  Note that core-08 contains an implementation of all the 
stuff proposed in this doc, and I did use appSpecific there, so I can 
change it.

> Line 128: "in order for an attribute to be returned" -> "in order for an 
> attribute value to be returned"

Will look at and reword as necessary.

> Lines 161, 166, etc: Can we change "att-format" to 
> "attributename-format" or "attrname-format"?  "att" seems too ambiguous.

I think I used attrname-format or attribname-format in the core spec, so 
this is done.  I'll change this to match.

	Eve
-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com