[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
Thanks. I agree. Let's stay with NewSubject etc. Will change to BaseID/NameID/EncryptedID. Phil phil.hunt@oracle.com On 2010-09-01, at 1:15 PM, Scott Cantor wrote: >> 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]