[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Change Notify - Multi-protocol Identifier Issue
> Yet the nagging question remains. If one party wants to notify another of > changes, but wants to allow the target to choose another protocol to > propagate the change, how are differences in identifiers handled between > protocols? I don't think that's necessarily something you want to tackle in the scope of this proposal. That's a pretty broad problem. > My proposal is that in addition to the SAML NameIdentifier being present in > the message, that we include all identifiers for offered available action > protocols. Here is one possible example way a message might be restructured: SAML is the one that already supports extensible naming. You can put anything into a NameID, you just have to decide what it should look like and what the Format should be. I don't think we should be stuffing non-SAML format names into the protocol. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]