RE: [imi] Conflict between SAML 2.0 token profile and WS-Trust

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

Scott Cantor wrote on 2009-12-15:
> Mike Jones wrote on 2009-12-15:
>> Any disagreement, or shall I file an issue for us to consider on
>> Thursday's call?
> 
> Don't think I had any particular reason for that wording, so that's fine.
If
> anything I would have gotten it from (mis-)interpreting something in IMI,
> I'll take a look when time permits.

Found it:

3.3.5 Proof Key for Issued Token

An issued token can have a symmetric proof key (symmetric key token), an
asymmetric proof key (asymmetric key token), or no proof key (bearer token).
If no key type is specified in the Relying Party policy, then an Identity
Selector SHOULD request an asymmetric key token from the IP/STS by default.

So, which should I be consistent with?

-- Scott