Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - Re: protocol-09 posted

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: protocol-09 posted


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Scavo <>
  • To: Scott Cantor <>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: protocol-09 posted
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:30:56 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=e/nNaoBCx6gXo0VcOyyXtdMcvL4cx5Pk4HU6H4lUMAxephTVseTXdianY5ROQ4NXrriWFxEnMATb8RnmylwxFTDYvj8eDG99ULJj4JomGTsiQAcT9/Me+vnTp5GhK52NeDdwLTgZA5MLt2MTetmzki2BXWYl6R45kmR1ITSETxA=
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:20:29 -0500, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
> > What about holder-of-key (as in LionShare)? Are you going to address
> > that in the protocol spec?
>
> No, because Shibboleth doesn't use it. The document has been clear that
> implementing the SAML bits for Shibboleth doesn't require supporting the
> other confirmation methods on either end, but to be strictly correct, the AA
> is supposed to notice if somebody asks for one it doesn't support and reject
> it.

That's what I meant, are you going to mention what methods are supported?

Tom

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page