[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Issues CORE-16 and CORE-17 and matchingprotocols/profiles
> Issue CORE-16 has to do with element renaming. We have a strong > preference to call the ID attributes simply "ID" (rather than > AssertionID etc.); this seemed to be the sentiment at the F2F > too. I definitely would like that. > From an engineering perspective we had no strong preference on the > renaming of other elements and attributes. Since so much else is > changing in SAML V2.0, it was felt that naming changes were relatively > incidental. I think there are simple, practical reasons to increase the abbreviations we use in at least some places. > Finally, on the general matter of having protocols and corresponding > profiles: We advocate that there be a (trivial, if necessary) profile > that mentions each protocol somehow. I was planning to do a new profiles draft this week, I guess I could take a stab at this for one of them and see what might need to be said. I can't think of very much unless metadata factors in more prominently than it has so far. Liberty's profiles are very explicit about the use of metadata, but I didn't go quite that far yet. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]