> > What about the case of, say, an Attribute query over SOAP? An
Attribute
> > Authority will respond with an assertion saying that "the entity
with
> > identifier X has the following associated attributes".
> >
> > I don't imagine that subject confirmation would be included, because
the
> > referenced entity isn't part of the exchange. So, the default
> > interpretation of that assertion should definitely not be "bearer".
>
> Right, that's my use case today.
>
> > I'd like to see text in core, section 2.4.1 "Element <Subject>",
state
> > that the absence of any SubjectConfirmation elements MUST be
interpreted
> > as having no correlation to any presenter of the assertion. Leaving
it
> > up in the air seems very dangerous to me.
>
> I'm happy saying it's just "unspecified", as Ron said...the authority
is
> making no statement about subject confirmation whatsoever.
>
> -- Scott
So, you don't see any danger in a malicious party presenting such an
assertion to another relying party that interpreted the spec's
unspecificity is this area (which I don't see actually stated anywhere)
differently -- as "bearer", for instance? This is my motivation for the
MUST clarification.
--
Steve Anderson
OpenNetwork
