<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hans Granqvist wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid453EA4A8.4020509@verisign.com" type="cite">Depends
on what people on the list want. How about you?
<br>
</blockquote>
A. It's not complete<br>
B. It has a geeky approach (which is really OK), but I'd prefer a clear
cut model of security defined, i.e. only options which define certain
levels, but not unsecured ones<br>
<br>
As in a previous mail on the list just was pointed out, if you give the
option to have unsecured parts (and depending on the default), then the
secured option will be less taken. I wasn't really sure also, who
defines the options: the IDP or the RP? If only the IDP decides on
that, then this might be OK, since the IDP can advertise, that he is
running only in secure mode...making others less attractive....<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Regards</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Phone: +1.213.341.0390</font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>