This is my point, why create a new token type, its just a
BinarySecurityToken, just fall right in line with Kerberos and X509.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Phillip H. |
| | Griffin" |
| | <phil.griffin@asn|
| | -1.com> |
| | |
| | 11/30/2002 07:59 |
| | PM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS |
| cc: "[OASIS WSS]" <> |
| Subject: Re: [wss] WSS-Core-04-1117 Contribution |
| |
| |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I think we should probably add this as an issue. I see little reason to
treat this token differently than the BinarySecurityToken. You'll see
that I mostly aped that text.
Another related issue that should be added relates to my comment
on the commonality between the binary security token and the XCBF
token. I'd like to provde more input to support the idea that the two
should be combined into a Foreign token that supports binary and
XML encoded objects that are not based on the W3C schema.
Phil
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
