All,
This issue is highly important to the NHIN Exchange. It is currently blocking a state health information exchange from joining the NHIN Exchange, and two vendors (perhaps more) are in a holding pattern depending on the authoritative resolution to this issue.
What is the proper path for getting a consensus initial opinion and ultimately an authoritative statement on this (and some closely related) topics?
Would it be helpful if I provided revised SAML text intended to replace the existing text?
Eric Heflin
Dir of Standards and Interoperability
Medicity
THE Standard for Meaningful HIE.
www.medicity.com
801.415.2672 (o)
801.674.2313 (m)
eheflin (Skype)
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Heflin
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 9:44 AM
To: 'Cantor, Scott E.';
Subject: RE: NHIN Exchange <Subject> question
Scott,
Thanks for the fast response.
Here's the ambiguity: Since a SAML assertion can have multiple <Subject>s, the quoted text ambiguous since it is not clearly specifying which <Subject> is being referenced as being required.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cantor, Scott E. [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 9:27 AM
To: Eric Heflin;
Subject: RE: NHIN Exchange <Subject> question
> Interpretation A (Only one <Subject> element is required): One
> interpretation is that a SAML Assertion with an <AttributeStatement>
> element does not need a <Subject> element -inside- any child
> <Assertion> elements containing the <AttributeStatement>, but that
> such a SAML Assertion does require a <Subject> element at the root
> <Assertion>/<Subject> level.
That directly contradicts the text you're quoting.
> <!-- Does not contain a subject, because there is one in the
> encompassing assertion and this assertion is about the
> same subject ->
There is no relationship between those assertions, so they certainly don't inherit anything between them.
> Interpretation B
That is the one that actually follows the text of the spec.
-- Scott
