RE: [security-services] 2.x suggestions

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

> As "Light" and "Full" reflect rather a kind of completeness for a full set of use
> cases that most deployers won't need, I suggest purpose-related
> conformance classes, like "Enterprise" and "Large Federation" that reflect
> proper support for metadata and IDP-discovery. Or a class that request some
> security-related features like SLO, HoK, maybe <Response>-signature or
> SimpleSIgnBinding.

So more generally, dump the "light" and "full" labels and decide what more useful collections of features might be called that reflect the purpose. That seems sensible.

-- Scott