Re: [security-bindings] soap bindings edits

[Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>]

I will propose new wording for 124-125, because the current wording
implies that there are NO in-message authentication protocols, when the
intent is to say that this standard leaves authentication to the
transport layer.

If I am using signed SOAP for SAML messages, am I non-compliant?  I
understand the minimal level of interoperability you are trying to
achieve, but the wording as-is makes ANY movement forward
non-compliant.  Is that the intent?  If not, then 78-79 will need to be
rewritten.

I would be glad to take an edit pass at the whole document, if folks
think it worthwhile.
	/r
-- 
Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
Encryption)
http://www.zolera.com