[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Retracting earlier SubjectRef suggestion
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] >... > Well, assuming for the moment we're not talking about > actually factoring > Subject out, my assumption is that SubjectStatement carries > an optional > subject and has the semantic that such a statement requires either an > in-band element or the assertion-level element be present. > Thus my point > that it's no longer possible to assume SAML "validity" from > schema validity. > I see no way around that even if we did factor Subject out, > since it would > be optional either way. Without co-constraints, not much we > can do about > that. In fact, I *am* advocating completely removing SubjectStatement, and having Subject elements *only* at the Assertion level. > StatementType could be left for others to derive truly Subject-less > statements from. As Eve pointed out, people whose Path Leads To Madness can still derive their own sort of SubjectStatement from our existing extensible Statement. - irving (i configured *@&^#*% outlook to line-wrap my text messages, but it isn't working) -
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]