Re: [security-services] Metadata errata items

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Scott Cantor <> wrote:
>
>  - Absence of NameIDFormat
>
>  I think we should explicitly state that the absence of this element doesn't
>  imply anything about the formats supported. In other words, listing none
>  doesn't mean you don't support any. If this isn't how people interpreted it,
>  let me know, but that's what I meant.

Other metadata elements are similarly confusing.  For example, the
normative language surrounding <md:AttributeProfile> is exactly the
same as <md:NameIDFormat>.  Likewise, the intended use of
<saml:Attribute> is unclear.  If we're going to clarify one, we should
clarify them all.

In contrast, the <md:RequestedAttribute> is very useful.  The addition
of the isRequired attribute permits <md:RequestedAttribute> to be used
unequivocally.

>  Proposal is to add text at line 661:
>
>  "Omitting this element does not imply that any given format is supported or
>  unsupported; it means any such knowledge is exchanged out of band."

Or clarified in a separate metadata profile?

Tom