shibboleth-dev - Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work

From: Tom Scavo <>
To:
Subject: Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:10:01 -0500
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=EtepjVt6ylYO0grgkDZ4uXHXwCVXb50/CB1b65t9nrMCqPozAexIOh+MegU4yp1gnN A+DMuUALxzit1sUVAuLwc44cv1uksfqQEOJvOZvCsnqSnItoR6n1kWqehe2u02+YTM60 b+k+ULpVWZy4soEG/dWryLQy34h13+LHYf51I=

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Chad La Joie
<>
wrote:
> The behavior of the isRequired attribute and what to do if all required
> attributes are not returned is given in the SAML spec, so there is no
> ambiguity there.

I missed that, sorry. Can you provide a specific pointer?

Tom

Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/24/2010
- Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Chad La Joie, 09/24/2010
  - RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/24/2010
  - Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/24/2010
    - RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/24/2010
      - Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/25/2010
        
        Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Chad La Joie, 09/25/2010
        
        Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/25/2010
        
        RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/25/2010
        
        Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/27/2010
        RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/27/2010
        Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Tom Scavo, 09/27/2010
        RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/27/2010
        RE: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work, Scott Cantor, 09/27/2010

List archive

Re: [Shib-Dev] [IdPv3] Consent Engine Work