RE: [imi] IMI TC Minutes, Dec 17th

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

I believe Mike was going to follow up on the SAML 2.0 token profile with you directly. I understood from the conversation that there were minor issue w.r.t. spelling.

The intent of accepting the 1.1 issue proposals was to facilitate continued discussion/improvement within the context of a new draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:30 AM
To: imi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [imi] IMI TC Minutes, Dec 17th

Marc Goodner wrote on 2009-12-17:
> SAML 2.0 token profile
> 
> ...
> 
> Editorial issues remain with draft, assigned to editors to resolve

Could somebody speak to this? Is there something else I need to modify, or
is this a note that there is additional feedback known but not yet supplied?

> Proposed resolutions for issues 29 - 32 above accepted for inclusion in
new
> IMI 1.1 draft and assigned to editors

With regard to the additional object tag extensions, I would like to note
for the record that I am against expansion of what I believe is too limited
a model for requirements expression. We should move this out to a structured
format that's more extensible, whether it's XRD or something else.

-- Scott



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php