>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Schaad <[email protected]> writes:
>> -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman
>> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January
>> 19, 2011 3:33 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: 'Klaas Wierenga';
>> [email protected] Subject: Re: [abfab] draft-lear-abfab-arch-01
>> posted
>>
>> >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Schaad <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> We're talking about various SAML exchanges defined to support
>> SOAP over HTTP. Basically, when we've been talking about SOAP
>> we're using that as shorthand for the SAML profiles for an SP
>> talking to an IDP that exist
Jim> today.
>>
>> We're arguing about the balance between our AAA transport and the
>> existing transport and what should be used when why by whom.
Jim> I agree that SOAP over HTTP is the most common, but it is not
Jim> the only binding that exists. It would be potentially useful
Jim> for me to be able to send SOAP messages over DIAMETER at some
Jim> point in the future. So for me the distinction between the
Jim> message format and the transport is a useful distinction.
I'm not aware of a SAML binding for SOAP over diameter.
As far as ABFAB is concerned the real question is whether ABFAB is
defining the transport or whether you are using an existing SAML
binding.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
