> *Request for Comment* - Separate UI-Related Items from Interaction Portions > of Specification
Generalizing names of the artifacts used to implement various protocols is a good idea. I would argue features like "warn" and "renew" are core to CAS, and protocols under consideration for CAS support should be evaluated against support for those features. While I agree that terminology might vary across protocols, I know that we would want those features regardless of the protocol in use. In other words the user experience should be invariant with the supported authentication protocols to the extent possible. > *Request for Comment* - Define Acceptable Service Urls I admit it's hard to imagine how some protocols might integrate with CAS, but why would we want to limit ourselves? Perhaps you could elaborate on the motivation for this change, and mention what benefits it would provide. I don't see any benefits at first glance. M -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
