RE: [security-services] Change Notify - Multi-protocol Identifier Issue

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> Yet the nagging question remains. If one party wants to notify another of
> changes, but wants to allow the target to choose another protocol to
> propagate the change, how are differences in identifiers handled between
> protocols?

I don't think that's necessarily something you want to tackle in the scope
of this proposal. That's a pretty broad problem.

> My proposal is that in addition to the SAML NameIdentifier being present
in
> the message, that we include all identifiers for offered available action
> protocols. Here is one possible example way a message might be
restructured:

SAML is the one that already supports extensible naming. You can put
anything into a NameID, you just have to decide what it should look like and
what the Format should be. I don't think we should be stuffing non-SAML
format names into the protocol.

-- Scott