> Issue 2: Some scenarios in the doc do not use Conditions elements,
> others do. Should we be consistent? It seems like lifetime as
expressed
> thro conditions are fundamental to security tokens and as such MUST be
> required by our profiles and interop scenarios. Thoughts?
[MS] The interop document has only the SenderVouches:Unsigned scenario
as one that doesn't require processing of Conditions. Could we make the
Conditions element optional here but require processing if present?
Regarding different confirmation method names for sender-vouches, there
are already three different values for confirmation method elements for
Sender-Vouches:* in the Interop document:
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:sender-vouches
(Line-273,Page-11 , L-465,P-17, L-662,P-25)
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:cm:sender-vouches
(Line-220,Page-9 , L-238,P-10 , L-404,P-16 , L-425,P-17)
urn:oasis:tc:SAML:cm:sender-vouches
(Line-606,P-23)
The WSS SAML TP document lists only
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:sender-vouches.
--ms
