Re: [saml-dev] Digital Signature Usage in X.509 Subject Attribute Query Specifications

[Anil John <aniltj@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, [2} was introduced primarily because [1] was thought to be
> overly restrictive (by me at least :) in some respects.  A synchronous
> exchange over a protected transport need not be further protected at
> the message level, in general.

Ah.. What were the concerns raised by the other folks that felt that
the protection was not enough?

Regards,

- Anil