[Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group select either the H TTPor SOAP protocol bindings?

["Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>]

Colleagues,
 
One part of the discussions at f2f#4 concerned the following:
 
(1) Do we require BOTH a HTTP binding and a SAML binding in SAML 1.0?
RESPOND: Yes/No
 
(2a) If yes, which binding is going to be Mandatory-to-Implement?
RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1
 
(2b) If no, which binding is of interest to you?
RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1/another proposal
 
___________________
My votes:
 
(1) No
(2b) SOAP 1.1 with some sanity restrictions concerning the use of
intermediates
(see related message).
SOAP/HTTP would be called out in full detail and would be
mandatory-to-implement. 
 
------------------------------
I think there is a lot of merit in restricting SAML 1.0 to a single binding.
We are all working with a common "internet architecture" and i dont see
the type of divergence out there that would require two distinct bindings
proposals.
The (fundamentals parts of) SOAP messaging architecture seem to be
well-accepted
and widely implemented.
 
Also, a single binding, designed and debugged with care is more valuable
that two bindings which havent been shaken out fully. Basically, doing the
right job for two bindings is going to take more time and I would like
some compelling reasons that we really need the two.
 
Notice also, that folks who need additional
bindings can go ahead and develop and register them (where? We need to
work on closing this item).
 
- prateek