Re: [abfab] I-D Action: draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-10.txt

[Stefan Paetow <[e-mail]>]

> > with the submission of the updated version of the aaa-saml
> > (draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-10), we consider the document is now ready
> > for a Last Call.

[...]
>
> Hmm, I'd feel more comfortable if we'd had one or two reviewers...


Ok, mostly grammatical and syntax nits:

1. Introduction:

Two sets of bullets in the introduction. The first set ends each
bullet with a full-stop. The second doesn't. Thus the corrected text
is:

   o  A URI that uniquely identifies the protocol binding or profile.

   o  Postal or electronic contact information for the author.

   o  A reference to previously defined bindings or profiles that the
      new binding updates or obsoletes.

   o  In the case of a profile, any SAML confirmation method identifiers
      defined and/or utilized by the profile.

2. Section 4.3.2:

Missing full-stop after <entityId>. Thus the corrected text is (in
keeping with the later Relying Parties paragraph):

   Identity Providers MAY apply policy based on the Relying Party's SAML
   <entityId>. In such cases, at least one of the following methods is
   required in order to establish a relation between the SAML name and
   the AAA name of the Relying Party:

3. Section 4.3.4:

Is a comma missing after 'provide policy' in the last sentence of this
section, i.e:

   RADIUS configuration is used to provide policy, including
   which attributes are accepted from a Relying Party and which
   attributes are sent by an Identity Provider.

4. Section 6.2:

Again a missing comma, this time after 'this scenario', i.e:

   To implement this scenario, a profile of the SAML Authentication
   Request protocol is used in conjunction with the SAML RADIUS binding
   defined in Section 4.

5. Finally, Section 9:

Is that a Relaying or a Relying Party in the first sentence of the
first paragraph in this section? Based on the remainder of the text,
it should be 'Relying'? Corrected text:

   The profiles defined in this document allow a Relying Party to
   request specific information about the Client, and allow an IdP to
   disclose information about that Client.

I haven't spotted anything else... feel free to tell me I'm wrong :-)

With Regards

Stefan