Eve -
I *think* you are reading this correctly in that we decide to have a generic
identifier for artifact confirmation method. However, I defer to Rob as he
is the originator of this item....
Jahan
----------------
Jahan Moreh
Chief Security Architect
310.286.3070
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 5:41 PM
> To: ''
> Subject: [security-services] Question on PE6 (artifact confirmation
> methods)
>
>
> I'm working my way through the Bindings and Profiles changes now. The
> disposition for PE6 in the errata document says:
>
> "Add a confirmation method ID (artifact) and indicate that either one
> can be used for 01, 03, or any other future."
>
> I couldn't quite parse this and couldn't recall the discussion on
> February 18 that led to it. Nor were the minutes particularly helpful.
> I think I'm supposed to add a section for a generic artifact
> confirmation method, urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:artifact, and
> explain that either it or the -01 version can be used. But I don't
> understand the "01, 03, or any other future" part. I would have thought
> that we would deprecate and plan to phase out the numbered version
> eventually. ?
>
> Also, I'm not sure we answered the other question in the erratum, which
> says "We should also be explicit as to whether providing the actual
> artifact in the ConfirmationData is required, optional, or not permitted
> - Which is it?"
>
> Eve
> --
> Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
> Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
>
