Forums

Hello,
I'm new to SAML and is currently in the process of evaluating the CS SAML v2.0 Component - this is a great tool BTW.
Our requirement is to construct and POST (HTTP-Redirect) a SAML response to a 3rd party payment gateway that has the following format (abbreviated):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<saml2p:Response xmlns:saml2p="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" ID="Response-_xxxx" IssueInstant="2014-08-21T15:49:24.977Z" Version="2.0">

<saml2p:Status>

<saml2p:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>

</saml2p:Status>

<saml2:Assertion xmlns:saml2="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" ID="SAMLAssertion-_xxxx" IssueInstant="2014-08-21T15:49:24.977Z" Version="2.0">

.....

</saml2:Assertion>

</saml2p:Response>

Note that the Response is prefixed with a "saml2p" instead of the regular "samlp".
What's the best and recommended approach on going about this?

Thanks!
-JJ

Some SAML implementations use the saml2p and saml2 XML prefixes. We use the samlp and saml prefixes which are recommended in the SAML v2.0 specification.
For the vast majority of SAML implementations the prefixes used do not matter. If they do matter then this indicates an error in the implementation.
An XML element is uniquely identified by its element name and namespace declaration. The prefix can be anything you like.
For example, the following is perfectly valid:
<foobar:Response xmlns:foobar="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol">
The Response element would still validate against the SAML XML schema because the element name is correct and it's declared under the "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" namespace.
I would recommend sticking with the samlp and saml prefixes as it's most likely that this won't cause any problems.
If there is an issue please reply to this post and we can look at the available options.



Regards
ComponentSpace Development