[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: SAML configuration/interoperability woes
Continuing from Browser Artifact question When I look on the F2F-binding paper, paragraph 3.1.2 I get some feelings that this is not designed for plug-and-play. Specifics: - The sample PartnerID is supposed to be communicated out-of-band - There is no place to store the assertion "pull" URL - Are the type-code to be registered? Artifacts introduce new problems that IMHO have not yet gotten suitable generic solutions. Minor detail: B64 encoding means Base64? If so I would add that this in turn must be URL-encoded as well to not get problems with "=". rgds Anders R
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC