RE: [security-services] Stateless Conformity To SAML

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

> I have to agree with what Prateek mentioned.  I think it important to
> allow stateless components to claim conformity to SAML 2.0.  

I agree too, but I still don't see what "supporting" Name Identifier
management messages has to do with the statefulness or lack thereof of a
SAML implementation.

I can't see any reasonable approach to consuming those messages that doesn't
pass most of the non-transitory state off to something else. For conformance
testing, that "something else" might well be a dummy implementation, but in
real life it's probably something totally distinct.

-- Scott

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>