[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] SAML Rev Idea: General Session Index
Fair enough. Is this something people think would be a useful extension? Obviously the Shib project has seen a couple places where it would help us out some. Does anyone else care? On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 14:04, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > On 1/16/12 9:55 AM, "Chad La Joie" <lajoie@itumi.biz> wrote: >> >>So, my question is, do we want to add an optional SessionIndex to the >><AttributeQuery> or, more generally to the SubjectQueryAbstractType or >>RequestAbstractType, in order to allow for, but not mandate, session >>correlation? > > I think our general philosophy has been to avoid making changes to the > content models except through the defined extension points to prevent > opening a big debate about versioning. > > Put another way, this doesn't have to wait for an update if it's done as > an extension, and then I think the question is, are there extensions that > we want to build into the specification rather than leave them in separate > documents, and what conformance rules should apply? Which is basically the > question I raised on the last call. > > The downside is that we end up with some namespace proliferation, and I > don't disagree that that's annoying. One option is to recast extensions we > want to include in a new core namespace (we can't use the existing ones > because we defined Extensions to use an ##other wildcard). > > -- Scott > -- Chad La Joie www.itumi.biz trusted identities, delivered
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]