Shibboleth Developers

[Tom Scavo <>]

comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-conformance-05

Bugs:

- [line 35] s|Shibboleth Architecture|Shibboleth Architecture:
Protocols and Profiles|

- [line 35] s|([ShibProt])|[ShibProt]|

- [line 49] s|Browser Authentication Request|Authentication Request|

- [line 58] s|([SAMLConf])|[SAMLConf]|

- [line 70] s|Request/Response|Exchange|

- [line 71] s|binding defined by|binding|

- [line 74] s|the "01" artifact type/format defined by|the type 0x0001
artifact format|

- [line 85] s|mechanism|mechanisms|

Suggestions:

- [line 48] s|are recognized within [ShibProt] as making up the
Shibboleth architecture|comprise the Shibboleth Architecture
[ShibProt]|

- [lines 49--54] All or none of the listed profiles should have the
suffix "Profile".

- [line 58] s|protocol or profile|protocol or profile (such as
Browser/POST, Browser/Artifact or Metadata)|

- [line 63] s|IdP - Identity Provider|Identity Provider (IdP)|

- [line 64] s|SP - Service Provider|Service Provider (SP)|

Questions/Comments:

- In section 2.2.1, why invent a new term "operational mode"?  Isn't
"role" good enough?  In fact, the term "operational mode" is not used
anywhere, so why not simply delete it?

- Why MUST an IdP or SP support the Metadata Profile?

- MUST attribute push be supported?

- [line 85] What "profile" are you referring to?

- [lines 91--92] The date of this reference is incorrect and the
document id is missing.