+1
On 2012-03-26, at 3:52 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> On 3/26/12 9:15 AM, "Rainer Hoerbe" <> wrote:
>
>> That would apply to both approaches, a new <AuthnAttributeRequest>
>> message or attribute negoitation in the <AuthnRequest>. I understand that
>> you challenge the use case for dynamic attribute requests at all?
>
> I've been known to call it "unrealistic" for the majority of deployments,
> but there are certanly edge cases where you can imagine it might work. It
> certainly won't be necessary most of the time, which is why it wasn't
> presented as a use case to begin with.
>
> But to your comment, I strongly agree. Anything like this belongs in the
> Extensions element, not as a new message type. That would be an interop
> mess, and require new endpoints in metadata and new profiles all over the
> place. Other than that caveat, it's fine.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
