RE: [security-services] Stateless Conformity To SAML

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]

> 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"