Scott, Rob:
(1) Thanks for your paitence !
(2) I finally understood the problem (that took a while!)
(3) I have no problem with the following proposed text:
Does this work? This one is for bearer, but we can update the
artifact-01
case similarly. It precludes the case I described in my last message,
but I
really am okay with the semantics described here...
-------------------
Every <saml:SubjectStatement> present in the assertion(s) returned to
the
destination site MUST contain a <saml:SubjectConfirmation> element. The
<saml:ConfirmationMethod> element in the <saml:SubjectConfirmation> MUST
be
set to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer.
-------------------
4) I agree this is kind of goofy overall and probably needs to be revised in
SAML 2.0. For good or bad it was sort of the proposal in 1.0.
- prateek
