Re: [security-services] Question on PE6 (artifact confirmation methods)

I guess we should clear this up in the meeting on Tuesday to make sure I 
get it right, and I'll hold off on trying to implement it until core-05.

	Eve

Jahan Moreh wrote:
> Eve -
> I *think* you are reading this correctly in that we decide to have a generic
> identifier for artifact confirmation method. However, I defer to Rob as he
> is the originator of this item....
> 
> Jahan
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 5:41 PM
>>To: ''
>>Subject: [security-services] Question on PE6 (artifact confirmation
>>methods)
>>
>>
>>I'm working my way through the Bindings and Profiles changes now.  The
>>disposition for PE6 in the errata document says:
>>
>>"Add a confirmation method ID (artifact) and indicate that either one
>>can be used for 01, 03, or any other future."
>>
>>I couldn't quite parse this and couldn't recall the discussion on
>>February 18 that led to it.  Nor were the minutes particularly helpful.
>>  I think I'm supposed to add a section for a generic artifact
>>confirmation method, urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:artifact, and
>>explain that either it or the -01 version can be used.  But I don't
>>understand the "01, 03, or any other future" part.  I would have thought
>>that we would deprecate and plan to phase out the numbered version
>>eventually. ?
>>
>>Also, I'm not sure we answered the other question in the erratum, which
>>says "We should also be explicit as to whether providing the actual
>>artifact in the ConfirmationData is required, optional, or not permitted
>>- Which is it?"
>>
>>	Eve

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com