JeffH's vote for 11

[Jeff Hodges <jhodges@oblix.com>]

> ISSUE:[UC-11-01:AuthzUseCase]
> 
> 1. Continue to include this use case.
> 
> 2. Remove this use case.

I vote for "1".

Rationale: I think it is reasonable to keep it in at this point. I do however
tend to agree with DaveO that tackling SSO first (in terms of actually
designing and issuing a spec) is a higher priority. BUT, I think we'll want to
do it with an eye towards this more broad functionality. 

What the actual scope of the SAML 1.0 spec turns out to be is something for the
wider SSTC to decide (imho). Perhaps our thoughts about how to handle
"dissenting opinions" is the way to convey to the wider SSTC that they have an
option (ultimately) on deciding the design & specification scope for SAML 1.0,
or maybe we need to (lightweightly) design another way if others don't think
"dissenting opinions" is the way to do this. 

JeffH