RE: [security-services] RE: IBM charter position (was[security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-charter-2.0-draft-02.doc uploaded)

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> >That's why they're appropriately separate work items in the scope
> >document.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification as this is what I was tying to 
> point out with the charter updates.

Well, saying they're separate work items and saying one is in scope and one
isn't are two different things. I agree with the former, but not with the
latter.

We can debate and discuss exactly what the necessary or sufficient use cases
might be to make a SAML identity federation component useful (and I expect
we will), but that discussion is not inconsistent with the proposed charter,
IMHO.

-- Scott