OpenSAML user discussion

[Kenny Pearce <>]

Scott,
        This is not at all clear to me from saml-core sects. 2.7.3 or 3.3.2.3
(I'm looking at the SAML 2.0 spec dated 15 March 2005), but I'm
certainly interested to know what best practices are in terms of
defining SAML attributes. Is there another part of the spec that I'm
missing? Or is this a best practice defined outside the core spec?
        Thanks,

On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 17:24 -0400, Scott Cantor wrote:
> Kenny Pearce wrote:
> > Isn't this kind of an undesireable limitation of the library, in terms
> > of full specification support? If I create object providers, should I
> > submit a patch?
> 
> I wanted to note that it's an undesirable thing in SAML to pass xsi:type 
> for 
> attribute values, in general. The spec makes this clear, but allows that 
> sending built-in types is typically ok. But ok != necessary.
> 
> SAML attributes are defined such that:
> 
> - values are from a uniform type space (this is a limitation, but that's 
> the 
> way it is right now)
> - the attribute's name implies the type
> 
> Given that, you don't need xsi:type here.
> 
> -- Scott
-- 
Kenny Pearce 
<>
Hx Technologies