[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] New Issue: Multi-Valued Attributes
> Out of the three choices, I agree that the last one is the > most attractive. The only thing that strikes me as odd is > that this allows for different values of the same attribute > to have different syntaxes. Is that a useful level of complexity? I noticed that myself, but I concluded that since it's up to the attribute's "definer/owner" to design its syntax, it's a complexity that can be avoided (if desired) by simply not doing it. There's no way for a SAML application that consumes attributes to assume anything about the syntax of attributes anyway. Another way to look at it is in Java terms, where collections can contain any kind of Object. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC