On 12/2/16, 4:46 AM, "Madalina Sultan" <> wrote:
> Regarding the metadata flag that announces support, the document currently states that it is optional. So it
> doesn't enforce anything. Do you think it will be more clear if I start from a specification like: "If an Identity
> Provider supports this extension, then it MUST define the metadata flag" ?
Metadata is/was optional in SAML, unfortunately, so there's no real way to say that. A SHOULD is a possibility but I suspect whatever language has been used in previous cases like this is the best thing to use.
-- Scott
