Re: [security-services] Current spec status summary

On 4/12/07, Paul Madsen <> wrote:
> not this title in particular, we just don't appear to name things in any
> sort of consistent manner, ie, prefacing with SAML 2.0, SAML, SAML V2.0
> or not at all,

Well, FWIW, "SAML V2.0" should always be used in lieu of "SAML 2.0"
since the former is what's used in the original specifications.  When
the spec in question applies across versions (such as the "SAML
Metadata Specification"), the version number should of course be
omitted.

Tom