Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

mace-opensaml-users - Re: Re: Re: [OpenSAML] AddRespondWith method

Subject: OpenSAML user discussion

List archive

Re: Re: Re: [OpenSAML] AddRespondWith method


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Tom Scavo" <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: Re: Re: [OpenSAML] AddRespondWith method
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:44:19 -0400
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Zkx8cOwxU0lkFXGl7wRd0Ugp//oTQ2B653wahaZ00ybXX/x+6D2mwwTYf1fEOHFmMY PUG8Y508/5NqTMJ0NwqGja1THC6eIRioTeQNQ39MCa3idsbbGaBZWK5qL4P4TgXVAJLy PGIHmFJt281YCpqx4rW7/FBhFLLYPK+Epq6PE=
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM,
<>
wrote:
> how do the Service provider tell IDP that it is expecting a
> authenticationStatement if i remove respondWith element?

Well, the IdP generated the artifact to begin with, so the IdP knows
what SAMLResponse to return (i.e., the same SAMLResponse it would have
returned via Browser/POST). I presume that's why the <RespondWith>
element was deprecated early on, because it adds nothing significant
to the message exchange.

Tom

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page