Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - Re: Future of the WAYF discussion

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: Future of the WAYF discussion


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Scavo <>
  • To: Scott Cantor <>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: Future of the WAYF discussion
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:18:38 -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=egQKGmqyFS2EnAEiA9kjsF2wb+MLO8gbPsuzNAAhsGIW6XWD7z/sNr4VivLuYv9YU+15GRWtstXHuPWo4D0MLdgnisEnrDHxGxSriCr1vhNOqJUzLquyzzCieWuvS2uuEa7SLN9I1hdoxRFO+93Iv06o1MxvQYOMY77dvFXY8/M=
On 9/26/05, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
> > I know how this cookie is defined in SAML 2.0, but has its syntax or
> > semantics changed along the way in Shibboleth 1.3?
>
> It has no semantics in Shibboleth, nor does the WAYF itself.

Sorry, Scott, I don't understand your response. Let me rephrase.
There is a cookie of the same name defined in SAML 2.0 (with a
particular syntax and semantics). Does this cookie as defined in
Shibboleth have the same syntax and semantics as in SAML 2.0?

Thanks,
Tom

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page