[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] SAML profile and interop scenario documents notes
> Issue 2: Some scenarios in the doc do not use Conditions elements, > others do. Should we be consistent? It seems like lifetime as expressed > thro conditions are fundamental to security tokens and as such MUST be > required by our profiles and interop scenarios. Thoughts? [MS] The interop document has only the SenderVouches:Unsigned scenario as one that doesn't require processing of Conditions. Could we make the Conditions element optional here but require processing if present? Regarding different confirmation method names for sender-vouches, there are already three different values for confirmation method elements for Sender-Vouches:* in the Interop document: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:sender-vouches (Line-273,Page-11 , L-465,P-17, L-662,P-25) urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:cm:sender-vouches (Line-220,Page-9 , L-238,P-10 , L-404,P-16 , L-425,P-17) urn:oasis:tc:SAML:cm:sender-vouches (Line-606,P-23) The WSS SAML TP document lists only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:sender-vouches. --ms
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]