Agree on both points.
Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer
RSA Security Inc.
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
mailto:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:40 AM
> To: Philpott, Robert;
> Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed addition to Section 3.3 of
> Conformance
>
> > A SAML implementation can provide the facilities described
> > above through direct implementation support for the
> > identifiers or through the use of supported API's. API's
> > provided for this purpose must allow the SAML implementation
> > to be programmatically extended to handle all identifiers in
> > section 8.2 and 8.3 that are not natively handled by the
> > implementation.
>
> Can we s/APIs/programming interfaces? Sounds a little less wonkish for
the
> document to me.
>
> > Note that only sections 8.3.7 (persistent name identifiers)
> > and 8.3.8 (transient name identifiers) define normative
> > processing rules for the identifiers. The remaining
> > identifiers in sections 8.2 and 8.3 specify no normative
> > processing rules. All normative processing rules in sections
> > 8.3.7 and 8.3.8 must be supported.
>
> The only normative rules that apply to an SP are that you shouldn't
store
> a
> transient (so it's not a "do this", but a "don't do this"). I think
it's
> worth saying that, maybe changing the first sentence to:
>
> "Note that only sections 8.3.7 (persistent name identifiers) and 8.3.8
> (transient name identifiers) define normative processing rules for the
> *producer of such* identifiers."
>
> -- Scott
