At 09:28 20/09/04 -0700, Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com wrote:

...

Ok, how about this...

Magic number(s): In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In particular, the XML root element of the returned object will be <Assertion>, and will be in one of the version-specific SAML assertion XML namespaces, as defined by the appropriate version- specific SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).

With SAMLv2.0 specifically, the root element of the returned object may be either <saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>, where "saml" represents any XML namspace prefix that maps to the SAMLv2.0 assertion namespace URI:

urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion.

I think the intent here is pretty clear and correct, but I find myself fretting a little at the wording in case of possible misunderstanding, so here's my suggestion for the 1st para:

[[ Magic number(s): In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In particular, the XML root element of the returned object will have a namespace-qualified name with: - local name: Assertion - namespace URI: one of the version-specific SAML assertion XML namespace URIs, as defined by the appropriate version- specific SAML "core" specification (see bibliography). ]]

I'm not sure that this is better; mainly, I aimed to avoid the (very slight) implication that the root element would always be introduced by the literal <Assertion>. In any case, your 2nd paragraph makes the situation clear, so use or ignore my thoughts as you see fit.

ScottC and I chatted about this and feel yer right and it's worth it to express it as you have above. So thanks again for the salient comments. a rev of both reg's incorp'g the above will be forthcoming. JeffH