Re: [abfab] Review of draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-11

[Alejandro Pérez Méndez <[e-mail]>]

El 16/10/15 a las 15:16, Cantor, Scott escribió:
>> Does it read better?
> I think Sam's suggestion works, and now I understand what you were trying to say, thanks.

I agree.

>
>> It'd be great if you could do that, thanks!
> I can take an edit pass within the next few days to get the XML fixed, can you pass me a copy of the WD XML source? Or if you want to finish up your edits and then pass it along, that's fine.
Whichever works better for you. It might be better if you do the XML 
fixes before, so I can adapt the text afterwards. Let me send you the 
XML file in a private mail.

>
>> Section 10 indicates ML signatures and encryption are optional, so I'd
>> say they are not ruled out entirely.
> In that case I'd use wording that says "<saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>". Or just use "assertion" in lower case.

I think using assertion might be better, since this might happen in 
other places along the document.

>
>> Would the following be clearer?
>>
>>      The ABFAB Authentication Profile is a profile of the SAML V2.0
>>      Authentication Request Protocol [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].  Where both
>>      specifications conflict, the ABFAB Authentication Profile takes
>> precedence.
> That's fine.

Regards,
Alejandro

> -- Scott
>