[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Status code proposal
> I don't know the current likelihood of it (or something like it) being > adopted for SOAP 1.3, but it seemed to be favorably received in various > forms. I selected the variant I liked the best, but others are possible. I thought the other approach -- an array of elements, the first one being distinguished as it must come from a specified set -- was getting better consensus. It avoids subtle "what is more detail" semantics, and lets you provide "alternate views on what happened" semantics. (Disclaimer: it was also my idea. :) On a more major issue, is the intent that SAML status codes be able to carry transport errors? For example, if I'm doing SAML over soap, and the soap library gets a SOAP fault, can the local SAML library wrap that up in a SAML message to present to the local application? *Should it?* /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures, Encryption) http://www.zolera.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC