RE: [security-services] proposed change to POST profile: send Response instead of Assertion

> From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:]
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Eve L. Maler wrote:
> 
> > If everyone else is convinced, I guess I am.  *If* everyone else
> > convinced?  Could an HTTP binding be made dead-simple enough to
> > "happen" to carry a SAML request or response?  If so, why didn't we
> > include it in SAML 1.0?
> 
> We took a vote a few months back on whether the HTTP or SOAP binding
> should be mandatory-to-implement, and SOAP won (I have no idea why).
> Someone could have championed a HTTP binding for inclusion in 
> the spec,
> but no one did.
> 
>  - RL "Bob"

I was one of the people who said SOAP, and my reasons were entirely
marketing. It would be hard to sell ourselves as a forward-looking standard
without it, since the rest of the world seems to think (perhaps mistakenly)
that the way forward is SOAP.

If the decision had been purely technical I'd have picked HTTP.

 - irving -


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended 
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or 
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, 
special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the 
contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being 
passed on.

 
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by 
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.