RE: [security-services] SHA-256 for SAML?

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

RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote on 2009-08-02:
> 
>> That language should have been moved into conformance, it's pretty much
>> an errata, I would say. It's not even useful for conformance, since it's
>> a SHOULD, so it probably ought to just be yanked.
> 
> OK, so there's a proposed erratum, also the same text in the conformance
> doc should be removed as you note.

You mean metadata? Yes, I'll create a PE so we can approve it next call.

-- Scott