Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - Re: Encryption key strategies

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: Encryption key strategies


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Tom Scavo" <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: Encryption key strategies
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:21:05 -0400
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ebYtshegg58kwt7PIggGv4X8UO9OBJuf8P1KqEgjm7qm3bgJzPpDLK88l6bl1rPGmSP/Ix+CwZ0+8K9encYybYXc7O3lX9XcEo0cGxb8SWm1VqGrRpL8Uv/4hhBAnzMtCHwxoHOvzgebJtBbNaJhjtbsayi8vg9xvdFiqxABNrw=

On 6/22/06, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:

None of this is part of SAML 2.0, and we're
talking about standard use of encryption within the base schema for use by
all profiles.

I'm not sure where you're going with this (but would dearly like to,
since I'm up to my eyeballs in encryption specs right now). What you
want is not in SAML 2.0 nor is it potential errata AFACT so the only
recourse is to specify encryption on a profile by profile basis,
right? If you have other ideas, please let me know before I invest
loads of time rewriting a spec that may ultimately be mothballed.

Thanks,
Tom



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page