> Right, I'd be happiest if the NameFormat was urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:
> 2.0:profiles:attribute:X500 and that implied OID URNs.
This was a proposal briefly, but only while the basic concept of NameFormat
was in flux (it would have had to be renamed NameProfile, or something).
> The next best thing would be NameFormat urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:
> 2.0:attrname-format:uri, as we have, but clear rules about how values
> corresponding to certain OIDs will be encoded.
From my perspective, this is what we have now, only without the clear rules.
My "rules" as an implementer are that if a deployer says that an OID URN is
to be processed with the LDAP profile, then that's that AFAIC.
-- Scott
