What material would be duplicated?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:security-
> ] On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:30 AM
> To: La Joie, Chad; OASIS SSTC ()
> Subject: Re: [security-services] SAML 2.1 Protocol Reorg Idea
>
> On 12/31/12 10:04 AM, "La Joie, Chad" <> wrote:
> >
> >Let's pick on SSO as an example. The idea would be to create an SSO
> >Profile document that consisted of Core section3.4[1] and Profile
> >sections 4.2 and 4.2[1]. Such a document, I think, would provide an
> >implementer a more comprehensive view of what it takes to implement
> the
> >SSO function. A more detailed discussion on the use of metadata could
> >also be added. People wishing to extend or reuse the SSO protocol, or
> >its elements, can continue to do so but will point to this document
> >instead of the core and protocol documents.
>
> I think there are two main problems with that approach:
>
> - dealing with the bindings
> - avoiding duplication of material
>
> Metadata is also something of a concern but is more or less included in the
> second of those.
>
> The original document design was primarily focused not on approachability
> but composability so that material wouldn't get duplicated. The assumption
> was that the best way to deal with approachability was not in specs but in
> separate documentation explaining things. I don't think we will ever have
> such documentation, but I'm still not sure that duplicating so much material is
> a good idea either.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
