Assurance

[Paul Caskey <>]

+1 to all of that and yes, IMHO, we should not use the word 'assurance' to 
refer to this context.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> 
>  [
> ]
>  On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: 
> 
> Subject: RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents
> 
> > I hope we don't need to require an addendum for MFA...
> >
> > I think the intent was for self-assertion.
> 
> I won't speak for the WG, but while working on the material, I had been
> operating under the assumption this was not an assurance category at all but
> a self-asserted AuthnContextClassRef (in SAML terms), just like many others
> defined in SAML already. Thus the idea of a self-asserted category to go 
> with
> a self-asserted AuthnContext seemed redundant (but that may prove not to
> be the case for other reasons).
> 
> I didn't actually notice the naming convention in the URI included the word
> assurance, and tend to think that may be confusing as a result and worth
> reconsidering before this finalizes. Sometimes the obvious doesn't hit you
> when you're staring at it closely.
> 
> -- Scott