On 24 Sep 2013, at 04:12, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not support either change. > I'd be comfortable adding a statement that the ABFAB architecture does > not provide a specific way for the user to inform the IDP about the > user's requirements for attribute releases. > Whether that's a major deficiency depends on what you're doing. > I agree there are cases where it is. +1. Deficiency is in the eye of the beholder and their use case at that moment in time. In many cases it happens to be a major problem, but it's not a fundamental deficiency. Calling out that ABFAB doesn't provide a means for this - and making no judgement on that fact - seems like a good way to go to me. Rhys. -- Dr Rhys Smith Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist Cardiff University & Janet - the UK's research and education network email: [email protected] / [email protected] GPG: 0xDE2F024C
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
