Thanks Andy,
I was waiting before sending out the Agenda today.
Since Scott has pointed you to the dev list,
I'll take your question off the agenda.
Best.
/thomas/
____________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sanford [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:29 AM
> To: Cantor, Scott; Thomas Hardjono
> Cc: Nate Klingenstein; OASIS SSTC
> Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: boolean
> attributes in SAML 2.0
>
> Great; thanks Scott. I will use saml-dev in
> future.
>
> Thomas, it would be great to see an errata issue
> that clarifies this point; if you could please
> drop me a line if/when this gets documented, I
> would really appreciate it.
>
> Also, Thomas , I guess this means there's no
> longer a reason for us to attend and bog down
> your upcoming tele-con with this issue, correct?
> Please confirm if you still want to discuss this
> or not. From our perspective, I think we're
> good.
>
> All, thanks so much for the quick clarification
> on this.
>
> Regards,
> -Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cantor, Scott [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:20 AM
> To: Andy Sanford
> Cc: Nate Klingenstein; Thomas Hardjono; OASIS
> SSTC
> Subject: Re: [security-services] FW: boolean
> attributes in SAML 2.0
>
> On 2/28/14, 10:17 AM, "Andy Sanford"
> <> wrote:
> >
> >BTW, can I assume it's okay for me to share
> this thread to help
> >clarify this issue to others, so that we can
> ensure implementations are
> >as interoperable as possible? Just want to
> check.
>
> Yes, but in future, just send questions to saml-
> dev, which is publically archived.
>
> >As there has been some debate on this issue, it
> might be helpful if
> >there was some official, explicit clarification
> on this issue in the
> >future - but I agree that a careful reading of
> the specs does yield this answer.
>
> I'll let Nate or Thomas create an errata issue
in
> Jira if they care to.
>
> -- Scott
>
