RE: [security-services] Is a separate "ArtifactReceiver" required?

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

> I am in maximal agreement with your position. The question is 
> what should go into SAML 1.1 vs SAML 2.0 vs Liberty Alliance. 
> The last is providing a "complete" framework for some of 
> these issues. My comments were meant to be scoped to SAML 1.1. 

Sure. From a compatibility standpoint, since this was out of scope in
1.0, I don't see much to decide 1.1 vs 2.0. Admittedly Liberty has more
foundation work here, but if we defer anything they're likely to do, we
may be done. ;-)

Obviously, I'd also like to see SAML incorporate some of that work to
increase the standardization of it.

I guess it's one of the higher priority things on my wish list for SAML
1.1, given that the traction is highest in the SSO space already.

-- Scott