You are absolutely right, I am clearly not
drinking enough coffee in the AM.
>>
>>Uh, shouldn't that be
>>
>> (1) Do we require BOTH a HTTP binding and a SOAP binding in SAML 1.0?
>> ^^^^
>> - RL "Bob"
>>
Here is what I intended to say:
One part of the discussions at f2f#4 concerned the following:
(1) Do we require BOTH a HTTP binding and a SOAP 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.
