Irving's votes for 6, 7, 8, 9

[Irving Reid <Irving.Reid@baltimore.com>]

BALLOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All issue resolutions are mutually exclusive, so please choose one
option for each issue.

[UC-6-01:XMLProtocol] 

2. Leave current binding to SOAP.

[UC-7-01:Enveloping]

 Abstain.

[UC-7-02:Enveloped]

Abstain.

IR: I feel that enveloping/enveloped formats will arise from particular
bindings and applications. We should let the requirement arise from a
specific use instead of arbitrarily asserting it. However, I don't feel
strongly enough about this to vote against.


[UC-8-01:Intermediaries]

   1. Add proposed requirement [CR-8-01:Intermediaries].

IR: This question really has two major parts: passing SAML through
intermediaries, and requiring that validity can be checked without
direct contact between AP and RP. The first is a clear yes, the
second I'm not so sure about.

[UC-8-02:IntermediaryAdd]

   1. Add the given use-case scenario to the document.

IR: The use case could be greatly simplified. We don't need a full-blown
B2B design just to illustrate IntermediaryAdd.

[UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete]

   1. Add the given use-case scenario to the document.

[UC-8-04:IntermediaryEdit]

   2. Don't add this use-case scenario.

[UC-8-05:AtomicAssertion]

   1. Add the non-goal [CR-8-05:AtomicAssertion] to the document, and
      change use case scenarios to specify that intermediaries must
      treat assertions as atomic.

[UC-9-01:RuntimePrivacy]

   1. Add the proposed non-goal [CR-9-01:RuntimePrivacy].

[UC-9-02:PrivacyStatement]

   4. Add none of these as requirements.

IR: I would support adding [CR-9-02-4-DisclosureMishra] as a 'best practice'
but not as a requirement.