RE: [security-services] Stateless Conformity To SAML

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

> Overall, it's an issue of insufficient granularity in the conformance
> claims. I understand we're trying to move away from too much 
> granularity, but this has swung to the opposite extreme, IMO.

Perhaps, but this goes beyond whether the profile is MTI, and gets into what
the profile actually does or doesn't "mean". Or we have to annotate support
for a profile with details about how the profile is to be implemented.

Just seems very slippery to me.

Clearly this didn't end up being an issue for Liberty, so I guess I'd have
to ask why. Either it just didn't come up, everyone agreed with my take
(heh, unlikely), or everybody's embedding robust transactional databases
into their implementations.

I'm going to speculate it's the first of those, but anybody know?

-- Scott