Dave O vote Use Case #11

Ballot:

ISSUE:[UC-11-01:AuthzUseCase]

2. Remove this use case.

My rationale is that I think our spec has 2 halves and I'd rather finish
them linearly, quickly and effectively.  My plan is to do SSO first, then
Authorization for SAML 1.1.  These 2 features seem very orthogonal to me.
This means that some vendor may implement AuthZ, and another implement
Authn.  So who is SAML compliant?  I'd like to focus on one thing at a time
without this "two-headed" spec we have.  

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that this measure will pass given the
votes I've seen so far.

Dave Orchard
XML Architect
Jamcracker Inc.,    19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408.864.5118     m: 604.908.8425    f: 408.725.4310

www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.