<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="https://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="https://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="https://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Attributes First</title>
	<atom:link href="/?feed=rss2&#038;p=448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.incontextblog.com/?p=448</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:13:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: In Context &#187; Identity In The Browser at 5. Lessons Learned.</title>
		<link>https://www.incontextblog.com/?p=448&#038;cpage=1#comment-15846</link>
		<dc:creator>In Context &#187; Identity In The Browser at 5. Lessons Learned.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 15:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.incontextblog.com/?p=448#comment-15846</guid>
		<description>[...] Claims Aggregation. In more complex use cases SPs may need to aggregate claims from multiple IdPs (e.g. physical address information from your mobile provider and payment information from your bank). With current Infocard solutions this causes the selector UI to appear multiple times in succession which is annoying for the user. The FC2 consortium implemented the ability to perform multi-card selection in their research selector however the Infocard community never reached consensus on an SP policy format that would support a single request for claims from multiple IdPs. See also Attributes First. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Claims Aggregation. In more complex use cases SPs may need to aggregate claims from multiple IdPs (e.g. physical address information from your mobile provider and payment information from your bank). With current Infocard solutions this causes the selector UI to appear multiple times in succession which is annoying for the user. The FC2 consortium implemented the ability to perform multi-card selection in their research selector however the Infocard community never reached consensus on an SP policy format that would support a single request for claims from multiple IdPs. See also Attributes First. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olivier Maas</title>
		<link>https://www.incontextblog.com/?p=448&#038;cpage=1#comment-13014</link>
		<dc:creator>Olivier Maas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.incontextblog.com/?p=448#comment-13014</guid>
		<description>Paul, I agree with you. 
If you speak infocard, the current specification of how the RP asks for claims is not satisfying. In the use cases we work on, it makes sense to ask for the age coming from the government and the bank details coming from ...your bank! And all this in one request,please. RP don&#039;t want identity selectors poping two or three times to complete an online transaction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, I agree with you.<br />
If you speak infocard, the current specification of how the RP asks for claims is not satisfying. In the use cases we work on, it makes sense to ask for the age coming from the government and the bank details coming from &#8230;your bank! And all this in one request,please. RP don&#8217;t want identity selectors poping two or three times to complete an online transaction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<a href="https://thenakedappraiser.com/next-day-delivery-cialis/">next day delivery cialis</a>