Re: [security-services] errata: misuse of strongly matches

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

On 10/23/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> > but the definition of strongly matches in section 3.3.4 does not
> > relate Subjects to NameIDs, it relates Subjects to Subjects, so the
> > above statement makes no sense.  The same is true of lines 1299--1301
> > of SAMLProf.
>
> "No sense" seems a bit strong.

Sorry, I meant it makes no *logical* sense, strictly speaking.

> Obviously, the meaning was that the
> identifier in the assertion Subject is identical to the one in the message.

Of course, I knew that. ;-)  But that has little to do with "strongly
matches", right?

Tom