>>>>> "Cantor," == Cantor, Scott <[email protected]> writes:
Cantor,> On 10/18/11 8:17 PM, "Sam Hartman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>Well, note that anything coming out of attribute mapping in your SP is
>> completely separate and is unprefixed; the administrator is
>> assumed to know their own policy.
Cantor,> That's generally true, but it's still desirable for
Cantor,> applications sitting on top to be able to distinguish
Cantor,> between a piece of data from one source vs. another.
>> So, I'd prefer the context be fixed. I think we need it to be
>> fixed for GSS-EAP. If the use cases for ECP are going to be
>> different then we should consider that. However it would be
>> valuable if you could plug one in case of the other.
Cantor,> I guess the way I look at it is that as a consumer of the
Cantor,> GSS naming extensions, I'd be physically ill shipping code
Cantor,> that hardcoded any names, so I see it all as a config time
Cantor,> question.
Right and with my IETF hat on I'd be physicall ill shipping a spec that
didn't nail that down. If you leave it to configuration you don't get
interop.
We need to support both models.
So, any hints on a URN you'd like?
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
