Editoiral Action: investigate why we need separate sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 in conformance document

["Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>]

Looking at the history of this distinction regarding MTI SSL cipher-suites,
I found that we had made this distinction in SAML 1.1 for the following
reasons:

(1) To encourage use of TLSv1.0, we made it MTI for programmable clients
(SOAP and URI binding)

(2) To encourage use of AES128 we suggest its use for programmable clients
(SOAP and URI binding)

(3) Recognizing that not all browsers implement TLSv1.0, we allowed for use
of SSL-based cipher suites with browsers.

I think this distinction is reasonable and has no impact on other parts of
the specification. So I would suggest retaining it as is in the conformance
document.

- prateek