OpenSAML user discussion

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <>]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Scott Cantor wrote:

> But I would argue that there is no other reasoning for allowing such a
> header, including anything relating to SOAP value-add. The binding as it
> stands specifically precludes such things so that implementing the SOAP
> binding does not require implementing SOAP with X/Y/Z extension for
> reliable messaging or what not.
>
> That should be a separate binding from an interop standpoint, though
> maybe one that will get defined someday.

OK, so maybe enough to say that the existing SOAP binding is not "*the*
SOAP binding" (as it says now), but "*a simple basic* SOAP binding", and
that SOAP bindings that want to use other cool WS-* SOAP thangs can be
written by those so inclined.  I will post a note to the SSTC along this
line.

 - RL "Bob"