> Failing to make matadata madatory was great disservice to the
> community.
I tried, but nobody really showed up to help argue the point.
> Any one claiming to support an extention MUST support it properly.
That isn't the issue. If the extension says that behavior is optional, then
you can ignore the extension in some cases and still "support" it. The issue
is whether the behavior in the presence of metadata and in the presence of
this extension should be the same or different, given that the IdP supports
it.
> Should I create a new cut of the draft with this feedback or do
> we need more discussion?
I think the draft can be redone on the technical side as far as the syntax,
but we'll need a schema for a wrapper element (IMHO) and for a flag to add
to metadata for the SSO endpoints to advertise support for this extension,
and then we just need to nail down this behavioral question.
-- Scott
