Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Scavo <>
  • To: Thomas Lenggenhager <>
  • Cc: Scott Cantor <>,
  • Subject: Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)
  • Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:48:16 -0400
  • 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:content-disposition:references; b=INIs6R/i4vx5KfzHwF0AlxxyEAmMGgsQfQg984cceTEu20Du1QgxOz6Ik9lz8sHAriCl92acDLN0/WuQYPjJtEnl44f8LIlJGYtILW6gN609Y/UwPDQRFavIOv/j8Liz0ukJAnZuqOd66uh5ix1KQbj2UpzfW6gl41BQpt1cuMU=
I think Scott is referring to the "common domain cookie" from the SAML
2.0 IdP Discovery Profile (in the SAML2 profiles doc).

On 4/21/05, Thomas Lenggenhager
<>
wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 Apr 2005, "Scott Cantor" writes:
> > I think we need to initially:
> >
> > - standardize the cookie name and syntax (and I suggest we adopt the 2.0
> > CDC
> > for that) to enable somebody to write a plugin that could manage all
> > discovery cookies in a client easily
>
> What is 2.0 CDC? Could you please post a link to it?
> If there is a standard coming up, we would surely like to adopt it.
>
> Thomas
>

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page