> > The SAML validation should be part of the spec, but marked optional as we > > decided some times ago. Making SAML optional makes me wonder about the > SAML > > validation in CAS client : make it optional also ? split the CAS client > in > > multiple specific clients ? > > Personally, I think we should defer any SAML discussion to the SAML > spec. I'm also in favor of deprecating the SAML1.1 end-points in > favor of the new CAS+attributes payload. >
We were tending toward consensus with the plan to factor SAML support into a separate (i.e. optional) module. I'd recommend avoiding extreme options like deprecation in favor of the existing plan that's already widely agreed upon. 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
