[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: boolean attributes in SAML 2.0
Thanks Andy, I was waiting before sending out the Agenda today. Since Scott has pointed you to the dev list, I'll take your question off the agenda. Best. /thomas/ ____________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Sanford [mailto:asanford@ebsco.com] > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:29 AM > To: Cantor, Scott; Thomas Hardjono > Cc: Nate Klingenstein; OASIS SSTC > Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: boolean > attributes in SAML 2.0 > > Great; thanks Scott. I will use saml-dev in > future. > > Thomas, it would be great to see an errata issue > that clarifies this point; if you could please > drop me a line if/when this gets documented, I > would really appreciate it. > > Also, Thomas , I guess this means there's no > longer a reason for us to attend and bog down > your upcoming tele-con with this issue, correct? > Please confirm if you still want to discuss this > or not. From our perspective, I think we're > good. > > All, thanks so much for the quick clarification > on this. > > Regards, > -Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Cantor, Scott [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:20 AM > To: Andy Sanford > Cc: Nate Klingenstein; Thomas Hardjono; OASIS > SSTC > Subject: Re: [security-services] FW: boolean > attributes in SAML 2.0 > > On 2/28/14, 10:17 AM, "Andy Sanford" > <asanford@EBSCO.COM> wrote: > > > >BTW, can I assume it's okay for me to share > this thread to help > >clarify this issue to others, so that we can > ensure implementations are > >as interoperable as possible? Just want to > check. > > Yes, but in future, just send questions to saml- > dev, which is publically archived. > > >As there has been some debate on this issue, it > might be helpful if > >there was some official, explicit clarification > on this issue in the > >future - but I agree that a careful reading of > the specs does yield this answer. > > I'll let Nate or Thomas create an errata issue in > Jira if they care to. > > -- Scott >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]