Tom Scavo wrote:
> In fact, this
> alternate use of SAML metadata is the reason I referred to the
> Metadata Interoperability Profile as a "deployment profile" as opposed
> to some universally applicable profile.
Leaving aside whether this distinction even matters, no profile is
universal. How many people are going to use a certificate-based profile for
SSO any time soon? That doesn't make it a community-specific profile, just a
relatively less adopted one.
The issue to me is whether a profile imposes constraints or assumptions that
would make it unrealistic to adopt across a broad range of communities. My
goal here is not to convince those communities to do so, however misguided I
may think they are. I'm just interested in giving the TC member companies a
better opportunity to provide products that meet the needs of a number of
communities they aren't serving very well right now.
-- Scott
