Scott wrote:
> BTW, it occurs to me that in fact the major advantage of doing a
> higher
> level extension element is actually to change the hint extension
> model from
> explicit XML to what you might call the "generic property" approach
> that a
> lot of people favor.
>
> In other words, this:
>
> <Extensions>
> <krb:Hint>...</krb:Hint>
> <ip:Hint>...</ip:Hint>
> </Extensions>
FWIW, I finally opted for this model. However, SAML2Meta states that
"Extension elements MUST be namespace-qualified by a non-SAML-defined
namespace". How should I resolve this, given that the namespace for
the discovery hint will be a SAML-defined namespace? Is it ok to make
this element a child of <RoleDescriptor>?
josh.
