[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: SAML FTF draft #3 contribution deadline: draft-sstc-bindings-model-04.doc
Hey, so, I just read these comments for the first time -- I wasn't aware of them originally. I'd like to request that, in the future, if someone has comments, please do -not- use this marked-up Word mechanism, but rather send plain-text email. It's much more readable and easier to determine the extent of comments. It should be relatively easy to say "In section 2.1.4.3, ...", and provide references. I'll have a detailed response to the comments w/r/t HTTP and SOAP bindings soon. In the meantime, Chris, could you read over the Use Case and Requirements document, as well as the glossary? I'd think a lot of your concerns about definitions of confidentiality, integrity, authentication, etc. are (or should be) addressed there. If those definitions get buried in the HTTP binding error codes section B-), I think we've messed up. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou, Senior Architect eprodromou@securant.com Securant Technologies, Inc. 415-856-9551
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC