On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Scott Cantor <> wrote:
>
> My argument is the same as it was originally. I don't think it serves either
> use case to attempt one profile that addresses SSO with a browser and
> stand-alone clients. They share commonality and they also have significant
> differences. I would leave it to implementations to decide how to overlap
> them.
As far as I can tell, a profile for a stand-alone client (which
doesn't exist of course) would be a strict subset of the
holder-of-key-browser-sso profile. Moreover, the IdP-first subcase of
browser SSO is *very* close to the stand-alone client scenario. Thus
I don't see much point in having two separate profiles.
Tom
