RE: [saml-dev] Artifact Format

> PKB: Agree. I think we should provide  a framework for 
> provider defined types. That's for future discussion.

I think the lack of that framework was intended to chill the development of
lots of custom artifacts.

> PKB: In general I agree. The situation is little different 
> for me - it is very limited circle with lots of security 
> requirements (Can't go beyond that). One problem is you have 
> to keep a map of artifact and to which user it was issued. 
> This requires a database or other distributed mechanism when 
> you have colos worldwide. I am exploring right now ...

You should keep in mind that artifacts are no longer assertion references.
Tracking protocol messages over the long term doesn't really seem like the
thing you'd want to do. It's the assertion that you probably would want to
track.

-- Scott