Re: [saml-dev] Digital Signature Usage in X.509 Subject Attribute Query Specifications
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Tom Scavo <> wrote: > Well, [2} was introduced primarily because [1] was thought to be > overly restrictive (by me at least :) in some respects. A synchronous > exchange over a protected transport need not be further protected at > the message level, in general. Ah.. What were the concerns raised by the other folks that felt that the protection was not enough? Regards, - Anil