Re: [saml-dev] use of protocolSupportEnumeration

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

On 6/16/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > You mean multiple AttributeService elements in IdP metadata?  This
> > would work but I'll bet they all look similar except for the endpoint
> > location.
>
> So? How else are you going to tell the difference?

Yeah, you're right, I guess.  Multiple AttributeService elements in
IdP metadata seems like the best approach, but I'd be interested in
hearing other people's opinion's on this issue.

> The simple answer to your question is that if a profile lacks a discussion
> of metadata requirements, then for all intents, it's not using metadata
> interoperably. I've made sure to deal with that issue in all the work I've
> done. If I had the time to look at the profile in question, I would have
> noted it, so you probably should.

Why do you think I brought this up? ;-)  I have every intention of
offering an update to the attribute sharing profile.  This and other
errors of omission will be addressed of course.

Thanks for your advice, Scott.

Tom