Just a quick note on this point before I catch up on my other dozens of
unread SSTC messages... ArtifactRequest made more sense when it was
defined side-by-side with AssertionIDRequest, which I had renamed thusly
after seeing AssertionRequest and ArtifactRequest side by side and
wanting to make them more consistent. The idea was that ArtifactRequest
was a request for an assertion by means of an artifact, whereas
AssertionIDRequest was a request for an assertion by means of an ID (or
so went my tortured renaming logic in order to leave the existing names
mostly undisturbed). But given the confusion/comments on this point,
and given our repositioning of ArtifactRequest as a protocol binding
that returns a protocol message and not a mere assertion, renaming of
ArtifactRequest is in order.
Eve
Scott Cantor wrote:
>>You're correct - It's a "request" for a protocol message that contains a
>>response message that contains an assertion associated with the specified
>>artifact.
>
>
> It can be. It could also be a request for an AuthnRequest. Or a request for
> a LogoutResponse. Basically it doesn't matter what it is.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
