> The discussion basically is revolving around "does a different binding
> make an endpoint non-identical, even though it is the same overall type".
No. "Identity" is based on the profile (thus the element's QName), not the
binding. A set of related profiles might also be equated if they choose to
overload themselves against the same element name (i.e. SAML 1 and SAML 2
SSO).
There are two reasons to use indexes: cluster affinity and binding
differentiation. So one of the use cases is by definition based on the fact
that bindings don't make endpoints "non-equivalent".
> For example can a SP with two AssertionConsumerService endpoints defined
> in metadata use the same index for GET and POST bindings or should they
> be unique? (within that descriptor).
They must be unique. If the element is the same as another, it gets a unique
index.
-- Scott
