[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Retracting earlier SubjectRef suggestion
I did some back-of-napkin implementation of my SubjectRef proposal, and even though it's more elegant to specify and is more consistent with the current spec, it's a little harder to implement than defaulting the Subject would be. Polar's comment also got me a little paranoid, only in the sense that one of the advantages of SubjectRef is that I was hoping to keep the relationship between schema validity and SAML validity. Since multiple assertions can appear in an XML document, this wouldn't hold with my suggestion any more than it does in Conor's, so it's a lose either way for me. So I retract that idea and suggest we go ahead and at least add an optional <Subject> ahead of the statement sequence and then make <Subject> optional in the SubjectStatementType. I can't think of any actual use cases for a statement that would optionally have a "primary" subject, so there's not much point in worrying about weird hypotheticals. That said, I'd like to ask what the use cases are for multiple SubjectStatements with different Subjects? I can't see any current or proposed protocols that would be likely to result in such a thing. If there aren't any, then why do we need to support it? It certainly creates enough headaches. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]