Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum --NameIDMappingResponse schema

Well, they have attempted to address this relationship to conformance with
section 2.18 and the notes therein which become effective for specs passed
after June 1 2007. 

I'm not sure that this is operationally any different than the SCR document
that SAML already has. I suppose that if this particular schema item is not
called out explicitly or implicitly in the SCR, then changing it might not
constitute a substantive change.

Of course, one approach is to just publish the changes and let the chips
fall where they may.

ET


On 4/30/07 3:36 PM, "Scott Cantor" <> wrote:

>> "(gg) "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would
> require
>> a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in
>> order to remain compliant."
> 
> Yeah, I just checked it.
> 
>> I'm not sure that the modification of schema as suggested would "require"
>> compliant implementations to change.  Indeed, I'm pretty sure none of the
>> implementations that have passed through the testing program enforce
> schema
>> validation, and no one has complained about this particular issue.
> 
> Possibly true. But you could argue that if the errata is addressing a part
> of the spec where conformant behavior was essentially impossible to
> determine, that any change made would by definition be a change.
> 
> Regardless, I think the definition is broken. Conformance criteria should
> reference errata if you're going to make errata serve its full purpose.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 

-- 
____________________________________________________
Eric  Tiffany             |  
Interop Tech  Lead        |  +1 413-458-3743
Liberty Alliance          |  +1 413-627-1778 mobile