Again, sorry for the slow reply.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
>> First, concern was expressed that restricting the assertion to only
>> allow for a single element was too limiting.
>> The restriction basically limits the ability of a single assertion to
>> be issued fo
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
> Apologies for the late comments (below).
And apologies for my late reply.
> > What about the two bullets on AuthnStatement?
> >
> > o If the assertion issuer authenticated the subject, the assertion
> > SHOULD contain a single
H-WG] SAML profile comments/questions from the SAML
> people
>
> I received some feedback on the SAML profile from a cross posting on
> the OASIS SSTC (SAML) list. Links to the thread topic index are
> below[1], if you are interested, but I'll try and summarize the two
> pri
ore
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML profile comments/questions from the SAML
> people
> .
> What about the two bullets on AuthnStatement?
>
>o If the assertion issuer authenticated the subject, the assertion
> SHOULD contain a single representing that
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Chuck Mortimore
wrote:
> I think it would be reasonable to loosen the language to reflect that the
> subject is who access will be granted to. It may or may not be the
> resource owner, I agree.
Any thoughts on what that would look like in the spec?Somethin
On 8/9/10 9:30 AM, "Brian Campbell" wrote:
I received some feedback on the SAML profile from a cross posting on
the OASIS SSTC (SAML) list. Links to the thread topic index are
below[1], if you are interested, but I'll try and summarize the two
primary issues here.
First, concern was expresse
I received some feedback on the SAML profile from a cross posting on
the OASIS SSTC (SAML) list. Links to the thread topic index are
below[1], if you are interested, but I'll try and summarize the two
primary issues here.
First, concern was expressed that restricting the assertion to only
allow f
