shibboleth-dev - Re: authentication authority
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Tom Scavo <>
- To:
- Subject: Re: authentication authority
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:01:48 -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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ihjZQgeqw0KUDx7wJZxl6Cb2lm56GVftFUpfOgVq9PmniNOBviALdF1LzngxrkauJGpRTzuoQtPG8TcbFL8izq0KUWQ9ZdU1gJikJ9/43/4aTjS/UsWVzTiZyjXRh/j+C4vEKinncekLGBnkdXV4+skiLd57XwqQeKCdlDOe8dw=
On 10/7/05, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
>
> That's why I think the domains matter.
Yes, domain assumptions are absolutely crucial. The sketch I outlined
assumed one thing and Scott's profile assumed something else.
Different assumptions about the domains involved lead to different
profiles.
So who is going to stand up the CA, the IdP or the VO?
Tom
- Re: authentication authority, (continued)
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Scavo, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Barton, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Scavo, 10/14/2005
- RE: authentication authority, Scott Cantor, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Scavo, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Scott Cantor, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Brent Putman, 10/14/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Scavo, 10/14/2005
- RE: authentication authority, Scott Cantor, 10/07/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Tom Scavo, 10/08/2005
- Re: authentication authority, Von Welch, 10/09/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.