[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded
On 8/30/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > So SP metadata (according to this profile) is a MUST? > > No, metadata is never a MUST. It's not even really a SHOULD. There are rules > to follow if you're using metadata. If you're not, you're free to do > whatever you want. > > > While IdP metadata (according to this profile) is a SHOULD? > > Same issue. I'm just saying that IdP metadata here is probably usable as is > in many cases (Ari has made the same point) while I agree with you that > there really is no obvious way to represent the SP side without an > extension. But since metadata can be used to exchange information and not to > automate configuration, you could easily stuff it into SPSSODescriptor and > plenty of people would get along just fine. Okay, I'll rewrite the metadata requirements with this in mind. Thanks to you and Ari for the feedback. Tom
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]