> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:38 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: [email protected]; 'Sam Hartman' > Subject: Re: [abfab] EAP naming attribute document > > OK. > > 1) I think we should say somewhere that you shouldn't send back multiple > assertions unless it's appropriate to just combine them together. > I.E. assertions from the same IDP about the same subject are probably OK, at > least until we figure out what we want to do in those cases. > > 2) It sounds like we should start doing design work on the case of attributes > coming from multiple sources at least enough to support your use cases. My > personal suspicion is that I want a bit more AAA framing than we do for the > single issuer case. I don't have a problem doing that standardization now. > However I want to make sure that is not mandatory-to-implement and that a > RP can easily tell if a situation it does not implement is happening.
As long as they come back, I don't think that I need any more support (other than query). My expectation is that we are just going to extract the entire SAML assertion intact and process it w/o the aid of GSS. Jim > > 3) I agree we should add a statement about non-unique name attributes to > the draft. > > 4) I agree the comments about policy should be clarified. > > > 5) I agree the IANA section needs all the standard things including a > registration process. > > --Sam _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
