[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: PartnerID format
From the bindings-list: >Discussions at the f2f#4 and at the bindings con-call on September 6, 2001 >raised several issues concerning the "PartnerID" component of a SAML >artifact (Section 4.1.3, draft-sstc-bindings-model-05). I have split the >discussion into several sub-parts, so that folks can separately agree or >disagree with each sub-part. Please respond with a set of choices and >rationale (if appropriate). Prateek et al, I did not find any alternative that I would support as I have already shown that PartnerIDs can easily be completely eliminated, and most URL restrictions as well. And by the very same change you would also get improved system reliability, and user-friendliness as "bonus". What more could one possibly want? Other issues: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200108/msg00166.html Anders
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC