"SAML 2.0 Compliant"?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 5/28/13 5:26 PM, "MikeWho" <who at me.com> wrote:

>I guess the answer then is D) That's a bad question. There are better,
>more
>specific questions that you could ask that would reveal more about our
>interoperability. ;)

That's true, but doesn't help you much in answering them.

>The saml2int profile is interesting, we're not strictly compliant with it
>as
>signed requests were a client requirement.

For good reasons I'm sure. ;-)

>(The funny thing about SAML integrations in my (limited!) experience, is
>how
>the real-world process matches the digital one, with both sides feeling
>each
>other out for their capabilities. "Do you know more about SAML than us, or
>do we need to walk you through it? etc.)

Yes, that's true.

-- Scott