shibboleth-dev - Re: SAML Artifact attribute
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Walter Hoehn <>
- To:
- Cc: , ,
- Subject: Re: SAML Artifact attribute
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:21:16 -0500
I haven't really gone on the record as to which of these models I think is better, and I'm not yet ready to. What is clear, I think, is that "Artifact + attribute query" doesn't make much sense in standard configurations.
-Walter
On Apr 27, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Velpi wrote:
*POST+pull=AuthN assertion through browser, attributes pulled w/ backchannel
*POST+push=assertion+attributes through browser (signed)
(*Artifact+pull: probably only useful in some specific cases)
*Artifact+push=Artifact is dereferenced through backchannel, response contains assertion+attributes in the same request/response
We prefer Artifact+push (at the present time).
- SAML Artifact attribute, johnson.kaniampurath, 04/26/2006
- Re: SAML Artifact attribute, Walter Hoehn, 04/26/2006
- Re: SAML Artifact attribute, Tom Scavo, 04/26/2006
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: SAML Artifact attribute, johnson.kaniampurath, 04/27/2006
- RE: SAML Artifact attribute, Scott Cantor, 04/27/2006
- RE: SAML Artifact attribute, Scott Cantor, 04/27/2006
- Re: SAML Artifact attribute, Velpi, 04/27/2006
- Re: SAML Artifact attribute, Walter Hoehn, 04/27/2006
- RE: SAML Artifact attribute, Scott Cantor, 04/27/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.