Shibboleth Developers

[Ian Young <>]

Scott Cantor wrote:

> I assume by picture you mean "explain what that would mean to the SP", in
> which case I agree.

What it would mean to the SP, but also it's probably worth saying that
the parameter whose name was specified as the value of the returnIDParam
parameter in the request MUST be omitted (if that's what you had in mind).

> In fact the MAY might need to be a MUST for this
> reason.

That's what I was getting at, it seems to me that MAY isn't strong
enough to guarantee interoperability.

        -- Ian