> Issue #1 instance
>
> <envelope>
> <body>
> <updateSession>
> <SAMLAssertions>
> </SAMLAssertions>
> <Extensions></Extensions>
> </updateSession>
> <body>
> <envelope>
>
> Issue #2 instance
>
> <envelope><body>
> <sendStuff>
> <myStuff></myStuff>
> <saml:SAMLAssertions>
> </saml:SAMLAssertions>
> </sendStuff>
> </body></envelope>
>
> In case #1, I see that the first piece of software that recieves a SAML
> request will be a SAML compliant piece of software. It will then have
other
> parties registered for various pieces of the software. Whereas in case
#2,
> the first piece of software will be generic and have a pipeline of flow,
ie
> first step: validate saml components; second step: dispatch to myStuff
> handler.
>
> It seems unclear to me which way an xml processor will operate on the
data.
> I really think we should have more of an idea of how the software will use
> this and flesh out our domain model and interactions before voting on
this.
> But that might just be the analyst in me.
>
Hi Dave,
I am not sure I fully understand your concerns here. If I send a
document of type #1 to be processed by something expecting a document
of type #2, then things will fail. But this would be the case even if
SAML was not involved - surely the processor has to know how to handle
the document? Isn't this just a question of application logic - like
having to agree which protocol to use when two parties communicate
for anything meaning full to happen?
Nigel
