Re: [security-services] Core-08 is now available

["Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@Sun.COM>]

Just a quick note on this point before I catch up on my other dozens of 
unread SSTC messages...  ArtifactRequest made more sense when it was 
defined side-by-side with AssertionIDRequest, which I had renamed thusly 
after seeing AssertionRequest and ArtifactRequest side by side and 
wanting to make them more consistent.  The idea was that ArtifactRequest 
was a request for an assertion by means of an artifact, whereas 
AssertionIDRequest was a request for an assertion by means of an ID (or 
so went my tortured renaming logic in order to leave the existing names 
mostly undisturbed).  But given the confusion/comments on this point, 
and given our repositioning of ArtifactRequest as a protocol binding 
that returns a protocol message and not a mere assertion, renaming of 
ArtifactRequest is in order.

	Eve

Scott Cantor wrote:

>>You're correct - It's a "request" for a protocol message that contains a
>>response message that contains an assertion associated with the specified
>>artifact.
> 
> 
> It can be. It could also be a request for an AuthnRequest. Or a request for
> a LogoutResponse. Basically it doesn't matter what it is.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com