RE: PartnerID format

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

Shibboleth seems to have a rough consensus (mostly pushed by me) that
the POST profile is more interesting to us at this point, but given the
WAP issue that was mentioned, I'd like to see a good alternative
available.

My opinions are:

(1) Strongly agree a namespace is needed, preferably an existing one.
(2) Either (b) or (d), to leverage an existing namespace.
(3) Strongly support the idea of just passing the URL directly.
(4) (a) seems reasonable to me.

At the very least, having an optional artifact type of this nature in
addition to the one already proposed would enable scenarios in which
preconfiguration of those Partner Ids is onerous to still be SAML
compliant.

--------
  Scott Cantor               So long, and thanks for all the fish.
  cantor.2@osu.edu                  -- Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
  Office of Info Tech        PGP KeyID   F22E 64BB 7D0D 0907 837E
  The Ohio State Univ        0x779BE2CE  6137 D0BE 1EFA 779B E2CE