Subject: RE: [security-services] Stateless Conformity To SAML
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:email@example.com] > One obvious option is to make the mgmt profile optional in light of the > fact > that not everybody is apparently planning to implement support for it > anyway. The advantage to establishing a distinct conformance class for > "non-persistent" IdPs/SPs would be to call out *why* it's optional, and > insure that it's MTI if you're supporting the persistent use cases, which > is > how I read Greg's suggestion. > +1 - This is also what I was suggesting when I mentioned last week: > Well we could introduce an operational role of (for example) "stateless > SP" - sort of analogous to the LECP column in the SCR. in a response to the discussion on "Analyzing cost of MTI features"