Issues CORE-16 and CORE-17 and matching protocols/profiles

Since I've now had the opportunity to discuss the following issues with 
the engineers back home, I would like to get their input on the table.

Issue CORE-16 has to do with element renaming.  We have a strong 
preference to call the ID attributes simply "ID" (rather than 
AssertionID etc.); this seemed to be the sentiment at the F2F too.  From 
an engineering perspective we had no strong preference on the renaming 
of other elements and attributes.  Since so much else is changing in 
SAML V2.0, it was felt that naming changes were relatively incidental.

Issue CORE-17 has to do with having a bag of condition-related elements 
inside Conditions.  (I had submitted this one.)  The preference of our 
engineers is to allow the order of elements to remain free; that is, 
they don'tn want the content model to be changed to dictate a particular 
sequence.  So I suspect I'm going to lose on this. :-)  However, we 
still need to make sure that each element documents the correct behavior 
when multiples are present (disallowed by prose, interpret in a certain 
way, or whatever).

Finally, on the general matter of having protocols and corresponding 
profiles: We advocate that there be a (trivial, if necessary) profile 
that mentions each protocol somehow.

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