> Note that it also appears that the "owner" for this MIME type is the
> SSTC as opposed to a specific individual. So as long as the change
> request is submitted by someone in the SSTC, we should be okay (i.e. we
> don't have to recruit Jeff H to submit the change).
Yep, that's specifically why I listed the SSTC as the "owner" in the original
registration rather than some individual.
>> Changes should be requested only when there are serious omissions or
>> errors in the published specification. When review is required, a
>> change request may be denied if it renders entities that were valid
>> under the previous definition invalid under the new definition.
>
> That is the case here.
Yes, it appears so if the discussion here is regards "PE80: Error in
permissible root elements for MIME type (Open)" in sstc-saml-errata-2.0-draft-51.
> It may be simpler to leave it
by this you mean to leave undisturbed the "Appendix A.Registration of MIME
media type application/samlmetadata+xml" in saml-metadata-2.0-os, as well as
the IANA registration (of which the former is a copy), yes?
> ... and add an errata in
> the metadata exchange section...
i.e. in Chapter 4 "Metadata Publication and Resolution" in saml-metadata-2.0-os
> that notes the mistake and suggests that
> people SHOULD NOT pass around AffiliationDescriptor-rooted documents.
yeah, that might be "easier" than registering a new MIME media type (of
"application/samlmetadata+xmlv2", say). If there are not many
AffiliationDescriptor-rooted metadata documents in the wild, then it may work
out fine.
=JeffH
