Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-conformance-01

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-conformance-01


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Scavo <>
  • To: Shibboleth Development <>
  • Subject: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-conformance-01
  • Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:25:33 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CSJAVzaFhjpcxIBqMjD7Jy6+pdxeRPOqF5OUb7l8wUnr6++hBNzRnM2Gd6R6Sg2yQuDvxn51DImvb9viXPxvUfLj67+HNBaBOBwbCNVBxuXnhyoXhZkub7FGLfixxcN8cOUcsjuoleAaPaTtVzBwnjGOCuJuqUHwKjsZYPH3pms=
Document: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-conformance-01

[line 1] Misspelled "Architecture" (again :)

[lines 51, 69, 73] The term "Attribute Query" is used, but in
[ShibProt] this is called "Attribute Request".

[line 70] Replace "is" with "as".

[line 81] Replace "September" with "November".

General comments:

- Since a WAYF is essentially a proxy for the SP, why MUST a WAYF
support IdP Discovery? Shouldn't this be OPTIONAL (just like the SP)?

- If the IdP Discovery profile is optional, why is the IdP required to
support it? Indeed, if IdP Discovery is not implemented, then
presumably there is no common domain and therefore no common domain
server for the IdP to interact with. So, in what sense MUST the IdP
support IdP Discovery?

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page