[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Blog post on Change Notify / comments on Aug 24 meeting
> Hmmm. I was kind of following the way ManageNameIDRequest was set up. Is > this not the preferred way? That wasn't a terribly well thought out message, and it mostly just got copied from Liberty. > I am open to using "NewPrincipal"/"ChangePrincipal"/"RetirePrincipal". How > do others feel? I don't specifically object to using Subject, I simply noted that I don't think you want the saml:Subject element in there. The "standard" way to identify a principal in SAML is a BaseID/NameID/EncryptedID choice triple. You'll see that in various places. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]