Re: [saml-dev] Second Artifact in SAML Bindings doc

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

On 8/15/11 11:54 PM, "Takashi Shitamichi" <takashi.shitamichi@oracle.com>
wrote:
>
>I have a question.
>
>At step 6, 7 and 8, a second Artifact is introduced in case of
>unspecified interactions. I think those interactions of step 6-8 are
>"optional" or can be changed/added with any other interactions. Is my
>understanding correct? I believe they do not mean "MUST".

The example is showing artifacts in both directions. 3.6.5, among other
sections, discusses the nature of HTTP bindings and their composability.
There is no MUST stated or implied in the example.

-- Scott