SignAssertions action not needed ?

[Brent Putman]

On 2/4/14 1:05 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure how finished the parameter classes/interfaces were, I'm
> still unclear on what's finished and what's still TBD. I guess you're
> saying the parameters themselves are done, 


Yes, pretty much.   At the very least, I'd say the
SignarureSigningParameters and EncryptionParameters are pretty solid,
and they are the ones most relevant for what work there is in the IdP.

As I noted in my message context notes, there's a slight TODO about
whether and how we use the TrustEngine on the
SignatureValidationParameters for say protocol message validation (maybe
we don't and it's just there to support for example SP use cases and
Assertion validation).

Also need to settle on and work out how the whitelist/blacklist
algorithm URI's from DecryptionParameters and
SignatureValidationParameters actually get applied, but I think that's
probably just updating the Decrypter and SignatureValidator code to
support those inputs, in some fashion.  Since I just reminded myself of
it, I'll work on that this week.  
 

> but the code that would serve
> them up after factoring in various inputs is the part that's TBD.


Yes, that is very much the TBD part, the input(s) and component(s) and
algorithm(s) that wind up computing/creating/supplying the -Parameters
instances.