[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum --NameIDMappingResponse schema
Well, they have attempted to address this relationship to conformance with section 2.18 and the notes therein which become effective for specs passed after June 1 2007. I'm not sure that this is operationally any different than the SCR document that SAML already has. I suppose that if this particular schema item is not called out explicitly or implicitly in the SCR, then changing it might not constitute a substantive change. Of course, one approach is to just publish the changes and let the chips fall where they may. ET On 4/30/07 3:36 PM, "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: >> "(gg) "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would > require >> a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in >> order to remain compliant." > > Yeah, I just checked it. > >> I'm not sure that the modification of schema as suggested would "require" >> compliant implementations to change. Indeed, I'm pretty sure none of the >> implementations that have passed through the testing program enforce > schema >> validation, and no one has complained about this particular issue. > > Possibly true. But you could argue that if the errata is addressing a part > of the spec where conformant behavior was essentially impossible to > determine, that any change made would by definition be a change. > > Regardless, I think the definition is broken. Conformance criteria should > reference errata if you're going to make errata serve its full purpose. > > -- Scott > > -- ____________________________________________________ Eric Tiffany | eric@projectliberty.org Interop Tech Lead | +1 413-458-3743 Liberty Alliance | +1 413-627-1778 mobile
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]