Scott Cantor wrote:
>> > 3. A stance should be taken on use of UTF-8 encoding (presumably
>> > this is the only encoding allowed by the binding).
>>
>> Ah, clarify this in other words? I guess we assumed since the macroscopic
>> encoding is XML that that spec would address any byte-level encoding
>> questions.
>
> For my purposes, no, it wasn't the intent. We don't force use of UTF-8
> anywhere in SAML at the moment.
correct. what I meant by
"..since the macroscopic encoding is XML that that spec would address.."
is that the XML spec(s) itself addresses octet-level encoding issues. We, at
the SimpleSign Binding, and SAML level overall, don't care.
> If it's because some parsers can't handle anything but
> UTF-8, I guess that's a reason.
i wouldn't change the spec imv, something like this is more impl guidance.
>> AFAIK, it doesn't really matter which we choose from a protocol
> standpoint.
>> Is there an implementation reason to prefer one over the other?
>
> Yes, see my response.
gotcha.
>> Our intent is that "...RelayState=value..." is _optional_ in the octet
>> string that is constructed in step 2, and subsequently fed into the
> signature
>> function in step 3 of section 2.5.
>>
>> Can you suggest a way it can be clarified?
>
> There's text in SAMLBind for this, we just forgot to copy it.
doh! my mistake, since I did the orig copying ;)
> This where I
> agree with Sampo's point...you shouldn't have to read HTTP-Redirect to
> understand this one. ;-)
agreed.
=JeffH
