shibboleth-dev - Re: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Tom Scavo <>
- To: Scott Cantor <>
- Cc: Shibboleth Development <>
- Subject: Re: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:36:17 -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:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=HOc/bvJRkPSpauOPLdOkWm4UR263cTrOkxKWcAJfxk1T2uEH2a5qRXFl5YqY57NVi2kjgkY/XBFFDDLfQreTDBxiGM2wujDnjDLQN/Bh4b151rlkjwu3dD+cXgq2iUD3R7yFamq3dnQpAqt7aR8UM/Z5IaaZLHBV8boTDNp54Ys=
On Apr 2, 2005 4:27 PM, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
>
> > - In section 3.2.2, what are the requirements (if any) with respect to
> > <saml:AttributeDesignator> elements? Is there a specified
> > relationship between the <saml:AttributeDesignator> elements and any
> > <md:RequestedAttribute> elements listed in metadata?
>
> Nope, none whatsoever and metadata NEVER takes precedence over actual
> protocol which is why protocol bits are ALWAYS preferred.
Okay, I take this to be your answer to the second question, now what
about the first question?
Tom
- comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Tom Scavo, 04/02/2005
- RE: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Scott Cantor, 04/02/2005
- Re: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Tom Scavo, 04/02/2005
- RE: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Scott Cantor, 04/02/2005
- Re: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Tom Scavo, 04/02/2005
- RE: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Scott Cantor, 04/02/2005
- Re: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Tom Scavo, 04/02/2005
- RE: comments: draft-mace-shibboleth-arch-protocols-09, Scott Cantor, 04/02/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.