Independent Submission I. Young, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8409 Independent
Category: Informational L. Johansson
ISSN: 2070-1721 SUNET
S. Cantor
Shibboleth Consortium
August 2018
Independent Submission I. Young, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8409 Independent
Category: Informational L. Johansson
ISSN: 2070-1721 SUNET
S. Cantor
Shibboleth Consortium
August 2018
The Entity Category Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Attribute Types
实体类别安全断言标记语言（SAML）属性类型
Abstract
摘要
This document describes two SAML entity attributes: one that can be used to assign category membership semantics to an entity and another for use in claiming interoperation with or support for entities in such categories.
本文档描述了两个SAML实体属性：一个用于为实体分配类别成员语义，另一个用于声明与此类类别中的实体的互操作或支持。
This document is a product of the working group process of the Research and Education FEDerations (REFEDS) group.
本文件是研究和教育联合会（REFEDS）工作组进程的产物。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
这是对RFC系列的贡献，独立于任何其他RFC流。RFC编辑器已选择自行发布此文档，并且未声明其对实现或部署的价值。RFC编辑批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8409.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8409.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2018 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. REFEDS Document Process ....................................3
2. Notation and Conventions ........................................4
3. Entity Category Attribute .......................................4
3.1. Syntax .....................................................4
3.2. Semantics ..................................................5
3.3. Entity Category Example ....................................6
4. Entity Category Support Attribute ...............................7
4.1. Syntax .....................................................7
4.2. Semantics ..................................................7
4.3. Entity Category Support Example ............................9
5. IANA Considerations .............................................9
6. Security Considerations .........................................9
7. References .....................................................11
7.1. Normative References ......................................11
7.2. Informative References ....................................11
Acknowledgements ..................................................12
Authors' Addresses ................................................12
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. REFEDS Document Process ....................................3
2. Notation and Conventions ........................................4
3. Entity Category Attribute .......................................4
3.1. Syntax .....................................................4
3.2. Semantics ..................................................5
3.3. Entity Category Example ....................................6
4. Entity Category Support Attribute ...............................7
4.1. Syntax .....................................................7
4.2. Semantics ..................................................7
4.3. Entity Category Support Example ............................9
5. IANA Considerations .............................................9
6. Security Considerations .........................................9
7. References .....................................................11
7.1. Normative References ......................................11
7.2. Informative References ....................................11
Acknowledgements ..................................................12
Authors' Addresses ................................................12
This document describes a SAML attribute called the "entity category attribute". Values of this attribute represent entity types or categories. When used with the SAML V2.0 Metadata Extension for Entity Attributes [SAML2MetadataAttr], each such entity category attribute value represents a claim that the entity thus labeled meets the requirements of, and is asserted to be a member of, the indicated category.
本文档描述了一个称为“实体类别属性”的SAML属性。此属性的值表示实体类型或类别。当与实体属性的SAML V2.0元数据扩展[SAML2MetadataAttr]一起使用时，每个这样的实体类别属性值表示这样标记的实体满足所示类别的要求并被断言为所示类别的成员的声明。
These category membership claims MAY be used by a relying party to provision policy for release of attributes from an identity provider, to influence user interface decisions such as those related to identity provider discovery, or for any other purpose. In general, the intended uses of any claim of membership in a given category will depend on the details of the category's definition and will often be included as part of that definition.
这些类别成员资格声明可由依赖方用于提供从身份提供商释放属性的策略，以影响用户界面决策，例如与身份提供商发现相关的决策，或用于任何其他目的。一般来说，某一特定类别中任何成员资格声明的预期用途将取决于该类别定义的细节，并且通常会作为该定义的一部分包括在内。
Entity category attribute values are URIs. Therefore, this document does not specify a controlled vocabulary for assigning such values; they may be defined by any appropriate authority without any requirement for central registration. It is anticipated that other specifications may provide management and discovery mechanisms for entity category attribute values.
实体类别属性值是URI。因此，本文件未规定用于分配此类值的受控词汇表；它们可以由任何适当的机构定义，而无需中央注册。预计其他规范可能为实体类别属性值提供管理和发现机制。
This document also describes a SAML attribute called the "entity category support attribute". This attribute contains URI values that represent claims that an entity supports and/or interoperates with entities in a given category or categories. These values, defined in conjunction with specific entity category attribute values, provide entities in a category with the means to identify peer entities that wish to interact with them in a fashion described by the category specification.
本文档还描述了一个称为“实体类别支持属性”的SAML属性。此属性包含URI值，这些值表示实体支持的声明和/或与给定类别中的实体的互操作。这些值与特定实体类别属性值一起定义，为类别中的实体提供了识别希望以类别规范所述方式与其交互的对等实体的方法。
This document does not specify any values for either the entity category attribute or the entity category support attribute.
本文档未为“实体类别”属性或“实体类别支持”属性指定任何值。
The Research and Education FEDerations [REFEDS] group is the voice that articulates the mutual needs of research and education identity federations worldwide. It aims to represent the requirements of research and education in the ever-growing space of access and identity management.
研究和教育联合会[REFEDS]是表达全球研究和教育身份联合会共同需求的声音。它的目的是在不断增长的访问和身份管理空间中代表研究和教育的需求。
From time to time, REFEDS will publish a document in the RFC Series. Such documents will be published as part of the Independent Submission stream [RFC4844]; however, the REFEDS Working Group sign-off process will have been followed for these documents, as described in the REFEDS Participant's Agreement [REFEDS.agreement].
REFEDS将不时发布RFC系列中的文档。此类文件将作为独立提交流[RFC4844]的一部分发布；但是，如REFEDS参与者协议[REFEDS.协议]所述，这些文件将遵循REFEDS工作组签署流程。
This document is a product of the REFEDS Working Group process.
本文件是REFEDS工作组流程的产物。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”在所有大写字母出现时（如图所示）应按照BCP 14[RFC2119][RFC8174]所述进行解释。
The notation "@example" is used as a shorthand for an XML attribute with attribute name "example".
符号“@example”用作属性名为“example”的XML属性的缩写。
Entity category attribute values MUST be URIs. Such values are also referred to as "category URIs" in this document.
实体类别属性值必须是URI。此类值在本文档中也称为“类别URI”。
It is RECOMMENDED that http:-scheme or https:-scheme URIs are used; it is further RECOMMENDED that a category URI resolves to a human-readable document defining the category.
建议使用http:-方案或https:-方案URI；进一步建议将类别URI解析为定义该类别的人类可读文档。
Authorities defining entity categories MUST produce a specification of the entity category and SHOULD make arrangement for the category URI to resolve to the specification in human-readable form.
定义实体类别的机构必须生成实体类别的规范，并应安排类别URI以人类可读的形式解析为规范。
Authorities defining entity categories MAY use versioning of category URIs where appropriate; if versioning is used, each version of the specification of the entity category SHOULD clearly indicate the latest version of the category URI (and hence of the specification). The specification SHOULD include a description of how the authority defining the entity category implements governance for the specification if the specification is updated.
定义实体类别的机构可在适当情况下使用类别URI的版本控制；如果使用版本控制，则实体类别规范的每个版本都应明确指出类别URI的最新版本（因此也应指明规范的最新版本）。规范应包括定义实体类别的机构在规范更新时如何实现规范治理的描述。
When used in SAML metadata or protocol elements, the entity category attribute MUST be encoded as a SAML 2.0 Attribute element with @NameFormat urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri and @Name http://macedir.org/entity-category.
在SAML元数据或协议元素中使用时，实体类别属性必须编码为SAML 2.0属性元素，并带有@NameFormat urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname format:uri和@Namehttp://macedir.org/entity-category.
A SAML entity is associated with one or more categories by including the Attribute element described here in the entity's metadata through use of the metadata extension defined in [SAML2MetadataAttr]. In this extension, the Attribute element is contained within an mdattr:EntityAttributes element directly contained within an md:Extensions element directly contained within the entity's md:EntityDescriptor.
SAML实体通过使用[SAML2MetadataAttr]中定义的元数据扩展，将此处描述的属性元素包含在实体的元数据中，从而与一个或多个类别相关联。在此扩展中，Attribute元素包含在mdattr:EntityAttributes元素中，mdattr:EntityAttributes元素直接包含在md:Extensions元素中，mdattr:EntityAttributes元素直接包含在实体的md:EntityDescriptor中。
The meaning of the entity category attribute is not defined by this specification if it appears anywhere else within a metadata instance or within any other XML document.
如果实体类别属性出现在元数据实例或任何其他XML文档中的任何其他位置，则本规范不定义该属性的含义。
If the entity category attribute appears more than once in the metadata for an entity, relying parties SHOULD interpret the combined set of associated attribute values as if they all appeared together within a single entity category attribute.
如果实体类别属性在实体的元数据中出现多次，依赖方应将关联属性值的组合集解释为它们都出现在单个实体类别属性中。
The presence of the entity category attribute within an entity's entity attributes represents a series of claims (one for each attribute value) that the entity is a member of each named category. The precise semantics of such a claim depend on the definition of the category itself.
实体的实体属性中实体类别属性的存在表示一系列声明（每个属性值一个声明），即实体是每个命名类别的成员。这种说法的确切语义取决于类别本身的定义。
An entity may be claimed to be a member of more than one category. In this case, the entity is claimed to meet the requirements of each category independently unless otherwise specified by the category definitions themselves.
一个实体可以被称为一个以上类别的成员。在这种情况下，除非类别定义本身另有规定，否则实体被要求独立满足每个类别的要求。
This document intentionally does not define "category", in order to leave the concept as general as possible. However, to be useful, category definitions SHOULD include the following as appropriate:
本文件有意不定义“类别”，以便使概念尽可能笼统。然而，为了有用，类别定义应酌情包括以下内容：
o A definition of the authorities who may validly assert membership in the category. While membership in some categories may be self-asserted informally by an entity's owner, others may need to be validated by third parties such as the entity's home federation or other registrar.
o 可有效主张该类别成员资格的机构的定义。虽然某些类别的成员资格可能由实体的所有者非正式地自行声明，但其他类别的成员资格可能需要由第三方（如实体的母国联盟或其他注册机构）验证。
o A set of criteria by which an entity's membership in the category can be objectively assessed.
o 客观评估实体在该类别中的成员资格的一套标准。
o A definition of the processes by which valid authorities may determine that an entity meets the category's membership criteria.
o 一种过程定义，通过该过程，有效当局可以确定一个实体是否符合该类别的成员资格标准。
o A description of the anticipated uses for category membership by relying parties.
o 依赖方对类别成员资格的预期用途的说明。
o A statement indicating the applicability or otherwise of membership of the entity category to different SAML role descriptors and any protocol support restrictions that may be relevant.
o 一种声明，表明实体类别的成员资格是否适用于不同的SAML角色描述符以及可能相关的任何协议支持限制。
Entity categories SHOULD NOT be used to indicate the certification status of an entity regarding its conformance to the requirements of an identity assurance framework. The SAML extension defined in [SAML2IDAssuranceProfile] SHOULD be used for this purpose.
实体类别不应用于表示实体符合身份保证框架要求的认证状态。为此，应使用[SAML2IDASURANCEPROFILE]中定义的SAML扩展。
If significant changes are made to a category definition, the new version of the category SHOULD be represented by a different category URI so that the old and new versions can be distinguished by a relying party. It is for this reason that authorities defining entity categories MAY employ some form of versioning for category URIs. When versioning is used, each version of the entity category MUST be treated as a separate URI.
如果对类别定义进行了重大更改，则该类别的新版本应使用不同的类别URI表示，以便依赖方能够区分新旧版本。正是由于这个原因，定义实体类别的机构可能会对类别URI采用某种形式的版本控制。使用版本控制时，必须将实体类别的每个版本视为单独的URI。
No ordering relation is defined for entity category attribute values. Entity category attribute values MUST be treated as opaque strings for the purpose of comparison. In particular, if the specification defining the entity category relies on versioning of the category URI, a relying party MUST NOT assume any particular ordering between different versions of the category URI. Any order between versions MUST be spelled out in the specification.
未为实体类别属性值定义排序关系。为了进行比较，必须将实体类别属性值视为不透明字符串。特别是，如果定义实体类别的规范依赖于类别URI的版本控制，则依赖方不得假定类别URI的不同版本之间存在任何特定顺序。版本之间的任何顺序必须在规范中详细说明。
<md:EntityDescriptor xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
entityID="https://service.example.com/entity">
<md:Extensions>
<mdattr:EntityAttributes
xmlns:mdattr="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:metadata:attribute">
<Attribute xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"
Name="http://macedir.org/entity-category">
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue>urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.21829</AttributeValue>
</Attribute>
</mdattr:EntityAttributes>
</md:Extensions>
...
</md:EntityDescriptor>
<md:EntityDescriptor xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
entityID="https://service.example.com/entity">
<md:Extensions>
<mdattr:EntityAttributes
xmlns:mdattr="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:metadata:attribute">
<Attribute xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"
Name="http://macedir.org/entity-category">
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue>urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.21829</AttributeValue>
</Attribute>
</mdattr:EntityAttributes>
</md:Extensions>
...
</md:EntityDescriptor>
Entity category support attribute values MUST be URIs. Such values are also referred to as "category support URIs" in this document.
实体类别支持属性值必须是URI。此类值在本文档中也称为“类别支持URI”。
It is RECOMMENDED that http:-scheme or https:-scheme URLs are used; it is further RECOMMENDED that each such value resolves to a human-readable document defining the value's semantics.
建议使用http:-方案或https:-方案URL；进一步建议将每个此类值解析为定义该值语义的人类可读文档。
A given category URI MAY be associated with multiple category support URIs in order to allow for multiple forms of support, participation, or interoperation with entities in the category. The authority defining the category URI and category support URIs MUST clearly describe the relationship between (all versions of) the category URI and (all versions of) the category support URIs as applicable in the entity category specification.
给定的类别URI可以与多个类别支持URI相关联，以便允许与类别中的实体进行多种形式的支持、参与或互操作。定义类别URI和类别支持URI的机构必须清楚地描述实体类别规范中适用的类别URI（所有版本）和类别支持URI（所有版本）之间的关系。
The entity category support attribute MUST be encoded as a SAML 2.0 Attribute element with @NameFormat urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri and @Name http://macedir.org/entity-category-support.
实体类别支持属性必须用@NameFormat urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname format:uri和@Name编码为SAML2.0属性元素http://macedir.org/entity-category-support.
Claims that a SAML entity implements support for one or more categories are represented by including the Attribute element described here in the entity's metadata through use of the metadata extension defined in [SAML2MetadataAttr]. In this extension, the Attribute element is contained within an mdattr:EntityAttributes element directly contained within an md:Extensions element directly contained within the entity's md:EntityDescriptor.
SAML实体实现对一个或多个类别的支持的声明通过使用[SAML2MetadataAttr]中定义的元数据扩展在实体的元数据中包含此处描述的属性元素来表示。在此扩展中，Attribute元素包含在mdattr:EntityAttributes元素中，mdattr:EntityAttributes元素直接包含在md:Extensions元素中，mdattr:EntityAttributes元素直接包含在实体的md:EntityDescriptor中。
The meaning of the entity category support attribute is not defined by this specification if it appears anywhere else within a metadata instance or within any other XML document.
如果实体类别支持属性出现在元数据实例或任何其他XML文档中的任何其他位置，则该规范不定义该属性的含义。
If the entity category support attribute appears more than once in the metadata for an entity, relying parties SHOULD interpret the combined set of associated attribute values as if they all appeared together within a single entity category support attribute.
如果实体类别支持属性在实体的元数据中出现多次，依赖方应将关联属性值的组合集解释为它们都出现在单个实体类别支持属性中。
The presence of the entity category support attribute within an entity's entity attributes represents a series of claims (one for each attribute value) that the entity supports peer entities in a
实体的实体属性中实体类别支持属性的存在表示一系列声明（每个属性值一个声明），该实体支持实体中的对等实体
category in a particular fashion. The precise semantics of such a claim depend on the definition of the category support URI itself. Category support claims will often be defined to be self-asserted.
以特定的方式分类。此类声明的精确语义取决于类别支持URI本身的定义。类别支持索赔通常被定义为自断言。
An entity may be claimed to support more than one category. In this case, the entity is claimed to meet the support requirements of each category independently unless otherwise specified by the category definitions themselves.
一个实体可以声称支持多个类别。在这种情况下，除非类别定义本身另有规定，否则实体声称独立满足每个类别的支持要求。
This document intentionally does not define "support" for a category, in order to leave the concept as general as possible. It is assumed that entity category definitions MAY define one or more category support URIs signifying particular definitions for "support" by peers as motivated by use cases arising from the definition of the category itself.
为了使概念尽可能具有一般性，本文件有意不定义类别的“支持”。假设实体类别定义可以定义一个或多个类别支持URI，表示对等方对“支持”的特定定义，其动机是由类别定义本身产生的用例。
A common case is expected to be the definition of a single category support URI whose value is identical to the category URI.
一种常见的情况是定义单个类别支持URI，其值与类别URI相同。
If significant changes are made to a category support definition, the new version SHOULD be represented by a different category support URI so that the old and new versions can be distinguished by a relying party. It is for this reason that authorities defining entity categories support MAY employ some form of versioning. When versioning is used, each version of the category support URI MUST be treated as a separate URI.
如果对类别支持定义进行了重大更改，则新版本应使用不同的类别支持URI表示，以便依赖方能够区分新旧版本。正是由于这个原因，定义实体类别支持的机构可能会采用某种形式的版本控制。使用版本控制时，必须将类别支持URI的每个版本视为单独的URI。
No ordering relation is defined for entity category support attribute values. Entity category support attribute values MUST be treated as opaque strings for the purpose of comparison. In particular, if the specification defining the category support URIs relies on versioning, a relying party MUST NOT assume any particular ordering between different versions of the category support URI. Any order between versions MUST be spelled out in the specification.
未为实体类别支持属性值定义排序关系。为了进行比较，必须将实体类别支持属性值视为不透明字符串。特别是，如果定义类别支持URI的规范依赖于版本控制，则依赖方不得假定类别支持URI的不同版本之间存在任何特定顺序。版本之间的任何顺序必须在规范中详细说明。
<md:EntityDescriptor xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
entityID="https://idp.example.edu/entity">
<md:Extensions>
<mdattr:EntityAttributes
xmlns:mdattr="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:metadata:attribute">
<Attribute xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"
Name="http://macedir.org/entity-category-support">
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog/basic</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog/advanced</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue>urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.21829</AttributeValue>
</Attribute>
</mdattr:EntityAttributes>
</md:Extensions>
...
</md:EntityDescriptor>
<md:EntityDescriptor xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
entityID="https://idp.example.edu/entity">
<md:Extensions>
<mdattr:EntityAttributes
xmlns:mdattr="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:metadata:attribute">
<Attribute xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"
Name="http://macedir.org/entity-category-support">
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog/basic</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue
>http://example.org/category/dog/advanced</AttributeValue>
<AttributeValue>urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.21829</AttributeValue>
</Attribute>
</mdattr:EntityAttributes>
</md:Extensions>
...
</md:EntityDescriptor>
This document has no IANA actions.
本文档没有IANA操作。
The presence of the entity category attribute within an entity's entity attributes represents a series of claims (one for each attribute value) that the entity is a member of the named categories. Before accepting and acting on such claims, any relying party needs to establish, at a level of assurance sufficient for the intended use, a chain of trust concluding that the claim is justified.
实体的实体属性中实体类别属性的存在表示实体是命名类别成员的一系列声明（每个属性值一个）。在接受此类索赔并对其采取行动之前，任何依赖方都需要在足以满足预期用途的保证水平上建立一个信托链，以确定索赔是合理的。
Some of the elements in such a chain of trust might include:
这种信任链中的一些要素可能包括：
o The integrity of the metadata delivered to the relying party, for example, as assured by a digital signature.
o 交付给依赖方的元数据的完整性，例如，由数字签名保证。
o If the entity category attribute is carried within a signed assertion, the assertion itself must be evaluated.
o 如果实体类别属性包含在已签名断言中，则必须对断言本身进行求值。
o The policies and procedures of the immediate source of the metadata, in particular, any procedures the immediate source has with regard to aggregation of metadata from other sources.
o 元数据直接来源的政策和程序，特别是直接来源在聚合其他来源的元数据方面的任何程序。
o The policies and procedures implemented by agents along the publication path from the original metadata registrar. This may be determined by examination of the published procedures of each agent in turn or may be simplified if the entity metadata includes publication path metadata in mdrpi:PublicationPath elements as described in Section 2.3.1 of [SAML2MetadataRPI].
o 代理从原始元数据注册器沿发布路径实施的策略和过程。这可以通过依次检查每个代理的已发布过程来确定，或者如果实体元数据包括[SAML2MetadataRPI]第2.3.1节所述的mdrpi:PublicationPath元素中的发布路径元数据，则可以简化。
o The policies and procedures implemented by the original metadata registrar. The registrar's identity may be known implicitly or may be determined from the entity metadata if it includes an mdrpi:RegistrationInfo element and corresponding @registrationAuthority as described in Section 2.1.1 of [SAML2MetadataRPI].
o 由原始元数据注册器实施的策略和过程。注册者的身份可以是隐式的，或者可以从实体元数据中确定，如果它包括mdrpi:RegistrationInfo元素和对应的@registrationAuthority，如[SAML2MetadataRPI]第2.1.1节所述。
o The definition of the category itself, in particular, any statements it makes about whether membership of the category may be self-asserted or may only be asserted by particular authorities.
o 该类别本身的定义，特别是它所作的关于该类别的成员资格是否可以自我主张或只能由特定当局主张的任何陈述。
Although entity category support attribute values will often be defined as self-asserted claims by the containing entity, the provenance of the metadata remains relevant to a relying party's decision to accept a claim of support as legitimate, and the specific definition of a support claim will influence the assurance required to act on it.
虽然实体类别支持属性值通常由包含实体定义为自断言的声明，但元数据的来源仍然与依赖方接受支持声明为合法的决定有关，支持声明的具体定义将影响对其采取行动所需的保证。
The conclusion that a claim of category membership or support is justified and should be acted upon may require a determination of the origin of the claim. This may not be necessary if the immediate source of the metadata is trusted to such an extent that the trust calculation is essentially delegated to it.
关于类别成员资格或支持的索赔是正当的且应采取行动的结论可能需要确定索赔的来源。如果元数据的直接源受信任到信任计算基本上委托给它的程度，那么这可能是不必要的。
In many cases, a claim will be included in an entity's metadata by the original metadata registrar on behalf of the entity's owner, and the mdrpi:RegistrationInfo element's @registrationAuthority is available to carry the registrar's identity. However, any agent that is part of the chain of custody between the original registrar and the final relying party may have added, removed, or transformed claims according to local policy. For example, an agent charged with redistributing metadata may remove claims it regards as untrustworthy or add others that were not already present if they have value to its intended audience.
在许多情况下，原始元数据注册器将代表实体的所有者在实体的元数据中包含声明，并且mdrpi:RegistrationInfo元素的@registrationAuthority可携带注册器的身份。但是，作为原始注册人和最终依赖方之间监管链一部分的任何代理可能已根据当地政策添加、删除或转换索赔。例如，负责重新分发元数据的代理可能会删除它认为不可信的声明，或者添加其他对其目标受众有价值的声明，这些声明尚未出现。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8174]Leiba，B.，“RFC 2119关键词中大写与小写的歧义”，BCP 14，RFC 8174，DOI 10.17487/RFC8174，2017年5月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[SAML2MetadataAttr] Cantor, S., Ed., "SAML V2.0 Metadata Extension for Entity Attributes Version 1.0", August 2009, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/Post2.0/ sstc-metadata-attr-cs-01.pdf>.
[SAML2MetadataAttr]Cantor，S.，Ed.，“实体属性版本1.0的SAML V2.0元数据扩展”，2009年8月<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/Post2.0/ sstc-metadata-attr-cs-01.pdf>。
[SAML2MetadataRPI] La Joie, C., Ed., "SAML V2.0 Metadata Extensions for Registration and Publication Information Version 1.0", April 2012, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ security/saml/Post2.0/saml-metadata-rpi/v1.0/cs01/ saml-metadata-rpi-v1.0-cs01.pdf>.
[SAML2MetadataRPI]La Joie，C.，Ed.“用于注册和发布信息1.0版的SAML V2.0元数据扩展”，2012年4月<http://docs.oasis-open.org/ security/saml/Post2.0/saml-metadata-rpi/v1.0/cs01/saml-metadata-rpi-v1.0-cs01.pdf>。
[REFEDS] "Research and Education FEDerations (REFEDS) Group", <http://www.refeds.org/>.
[参考文献]“研究和教育联合会（参考文献）小组”<http://www.refeds.org/>.
[REFEDS.agreement] Research and Education Federations, "REFEDS Participant's Agreement", <https://refeds.org/about/refeds-participants-agreement>.
[REFEDS.协议]研究和教育联合会，“REFEDS参与者协议”<https://refeds.org/about/refeds-participants-agreement>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC4844]Daigle，L.，Ed.和互联网架构委员会，“RFC系列和RFC编辑器”，RFC 4844，DOI 10.17487/RFC4844，2007年7月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[SAML2IDAssuranceProfile] Morgan, RL., Ed., Madsen, P., Ed., and S. Cantor, Ed., "SAML V2.0 Identity Assurance Profiles Version 1.0", November 2010, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/ Post2.0/sstc-saml-assurance-profile-cs-01.pdf>.
[SAML2IDASURANCEPROFILE]Morgan，RL.，Ed.，Madsen，P.，Ed.，和S.Cantor，Ed.，“SAML V2.0身份保证配置文件1.0版”，2010年11月<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/ Post2.0/sstc-saml-assurance-profile-cs-01.pdf>。
Acknowledgements
致谢
This work has been a collaborative effort within the REFEDS and MACE-Dir communities. Special thanks to the following individuals (in no particular order):
这项工作是REFEDS和MACE Dir社区内的合作成果。特别感谢以下个人（无特殊顺序）：
o RL 'Bob' Morgan
o 鲍勃·摩根
o Ken Klingenstein
o 肯·克林根斯坦
o Keith Hazelton
o 基思·哈泽尔顿
o Steven Olshansky
o 史蒂文·奥尔尚斯基
o Mikael Linden
o 米凯尔·林登
o Nicole Harris
o 妮可·哈里斯
o Tom Scavo
o 汤姆·斯卡沃
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Ian A. Young (editor) Independent
伊恩·A·杨（编辑）独立报
Email: ian@iay.org.uk
Email: ian@iay.org.uk
Leif Johansson SUNET
莱夫·约翰森苏内酒店
Email: leifj@sunet.se
Email: leifj@sunet.se
Scott Cantor Shibboleth Consortium
斯科特·坎托·希伯利斯财团
Email: cantor.2@osu.edu
Email: cantor.2@osu.edu