[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Da Capo: First contact
Hi Tim,
May I discuss this issue a little bit further on
the global list (I have
not yet received bindings membership)? You
say the partner IDs
should be agreed bi-laterally. I don't think
that will work too well.
The partner ID must be specified by the RP,
otherwise it could
be ambigious and not be properly interpreted.
Working with
plug-and-play, I believe that SAML ought to support
a sign-me-up
message to exchange such critical data. This
32-bit data is BTW
probably not compatible with existing customer IDs which makes this
solution less
appetizing.
What are the advantages with the current artifact
over opaque bearer
objects as described
by me? Well, I know that my scheme does not
support pull but in what way is pull better than
push? Push gives IMO
much better control for the AA that will find out
errors before the user,
who in pull will have to call the AA to say an URL
is wrong or a server
is dead.
Regards
Anders
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC