RE: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group select either t he HTTP or SOAP protocol bindings?

You have a misunderstanding here, which others may share; 
I am NOT referring to web browser profiles (SAML artifact,
Form POST). I am instead referring to mapping SAML request-response
protocols over standard transports/frameworks.

- prateek

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:]
>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:37 PM
>>To: Mishra, Prateek; 
>>Subject: Re: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group 
>>select either
>>the H TTP or SOAP protocol bindings?
>>
>>
>>Does this apply to the POST form as well?
>>I hope not as I don't see any use of SOAP there.
>>
>>rgds
>>Anders
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Mishra, Prateek" <>
>>To: <>; 
>><>
>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 18:22
>>Subject: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group select 
>>either the H TTP or SOAP protocol bindings?
>>
>>
>>Colleagues,
>> 
>>One part of the discussions at f2f#4 concerned the following:
>> 
>>(1) Do we require BOTH a HTTP binding and a SAML binding in SAML 1.0?
>>RESPOND: Yes/No
>> 
>>(2a) If yes, which binding is going to be Mandatory-to-Implement?
>>RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1
>> 
>>(2b) If no, which binding is of interest to you?
>>RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1/another proposal
>> 
>>___________________
>>My votes:
>> 
>>(1) No
>>(2b) SOAP 1.1 with some sanity restrictions concerning the use of
>>intermediates
>>(see related message).
>>SOAP/HTTP would be called out in full detail and would be
>>mandatory-to-implement. 
>> 
>>------------------------------
>>I think there is a lot of merit in restricting SAML 1.0 to a 
>>single binding.
>>We are all working with a common "internet architecture" and 
>>i dont see
>>the type of divergence out there that would require two 
>>distinct bindings
>>proposals.
>>The (fundamentals parts of) SOAP messaging architecture seem to be
>>well-accepted
>>and widely implemented.
>> 
>>Also, a single binding, designed and debugged with care is 
>>more valuable
>>that two bindings which havent been shaken out fully. 
>>Basically, doing the
>>right job for two bindings is going to take more time and I would like
>>some compelling reasons that we really need the two.
>> 
>>Notice also, that folks who need additional
>>bindings can go ahead and develop and register them (where? We need to
>>work on closing this item).
>> 
>>- prateek
>> 
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>