[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] question on Holder fo the key
Also, wouldn't the "bearer" SubjectConfirmation method be a closer match to these requirements than "holder-of-key"? Eric Heflin Dir of Standards and Interoperability Medicity THE Standard for Meaningful HIE. www.medicity.com 801.415.2672 (o) 801.674.2313 (m) eheflin (Skype) -----Original Message----- From: Cantor, Scott E. [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:24 AM To: swu@axolotl.com Cc: saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [saml-dev] question on Holder fo the key On 5/24/11 1:20 PM, "swu@axolotl.com" <swu@axolotl.com> wrote: >I guess then my question would be how >would SAML establish trust relationship in HOK case if no certificate >is included (neither from IdP nor Client). Out of scope. And for the record, if you establish trust based on the certificate directly, you probably wouldn't need SAML. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: saml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: saml-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]