[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Potential Erratum --NameIDMappingResponse schema
Yes, I'm sure everyone will implement so as to omit the NameID element in an error case, and so everybody will interoperate and nobody will conform. :-) But still, it would be nice for validating implementations to not have to introduce hacks to work around this issue. I guess it's a pretty low priority erratum, though. ::Ari > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:03 PM > To: 'Ari Kermaier'; 'SSTC (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- > NameIDMappingResponse schema > > > > What is the response supposed to look like if an error > Status is being > > returned? I would assume that the NameID/EncryptedID would > have to be > > omitted, but the schema doesn't allow it. > > Yes, the choice should be minOccurs="0". > > One could argue that a validating implementation will throw > an error in the case where none is included, and the worst > outcome from that is a validation error instead of reporting > the server's error. > > Since servers in production never return useful errors anyway... > > Ok, cop out, but still... > > -- Scott > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]