Re: [security-services] Comments re:sstc-maler-w28a-attribute-draft-02.pdf

Thanks for commenting on this.  Can others please take a look and 
comment?  We didn't get to this on Tuesday's call and it will be a while 
before we get a chance to make formal decisions again; it would be great 
if we could knock off W-28a for good on March 16.

	Eve

Scott Cantor wrote:

> Not much to say:
> 
> - where suggestion is made to change AttributeNamespace to NameFormat, the
> proposal then erroneously suggests it be named AttributeFormat
> 
> - also suggest that the NameFormat URIs be something like
> attrname-format:uri instead of att-format:uri for similar reasons
> 
> - still generally uncomfortable with the xsi:type vs. ValueType issue, but I
> like the idea of making xsi:type uniform across values. Would like to
> actually deprecate or at least discourage use of xsi:type anyway, since it
> harms interoperability for validating implementations.
> 
> My only real substantive comment is on 3.2, the NameFormat URIs being
> enumerated. I wonder if we need more than just
> urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:att-format:uri and the unspecified one. If the
> name is a URI, then it is by necessity unambiguous, and it seems like the
> use of OIDs or GUIDs can then be left to attribute profiles that describe
> how to assign URIs to certain classes of attributes, but doesn't need to
> clutter the processing in core.
> 
> Is there a separate use case for wanting to know that something is an X.500
> attribute as opposed to simply knowing that it's a particular X.500
> attribute?
> 
> -- Scott
-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com