Hal,
I have a couple of issues that I have sent to the mailing-list,
that you are free to add to the issues list or just ignore.
Should there be some WAYF support in SAML or not?
Why does SAML require partnerID+URL configuration when theese can
be eliminated by using slightly more elaborate protocols as described in
http://www.x-obi.com/OBI400/andersr-browser-bearer-objects.ppt ?
This is a scalability and URL breakage sensitivity issue IMHO.
Fat browser binding (if in progress) will not require these elements.
I.e. some of the "symmetry" will be broken if fat browser objects are
added to SAML.
Anders R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Lockhart" <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 16:51
Subject: Updated Issues List (draft-sstc-saml-issues-06.doc)
The issues list has been updated to reflect recent discussions on the list.
Some arbitrary decisions were made about what are issues and what are merely
editorial comments. Please let me know if I have missed your issue.
The issue status report has been delayed but will be issued soon.
Hal
