RE: [dss] Authentication Token

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

No objections to this.

But did you note my PS:

"Whilst looking at this I note that the saml:NameIdentifierType that we use
has been replaced in the new SAML assertion syntax by "NameIDType".  Do we
want to follow them, stay referring to an old syntax, or split off from
SAML?"

I am not sure whether this is a problem as the v2 NameIDType includes the
NameQualifier and Format in saml:NameIdentifierType.  I also would like keep
compatible with the SAML identifier so that we can use the same name
information in both.

Can someone familiar with SAML and its approach to naming confirm that we
can keep with the existing saml:NameIdentifierType structure.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
> Sent: 20 October 2004 07:59
> To: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dss] Authentication Token
>
>
>
> This sounds sensible to me too:
>
> <ClaimedIdentity>
>    <Name>...</Name> (type saml:NameIdentifier)
>    <SupportingInfo>...</SupportingInfo> (type any, optional)
> </ClaimedIdentity>
>
> Any objections?
>
> Trevor
>
>
> At 08:29 PM 10/19/2004 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
> >Seems v sensible.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ed Shallow [mailto:ed.shallow@rogers.com]
> >Sent: 19 October 2004 20:04
> >To: Nick Pope; OASIS DSS TC
> >Subject: Re: [dss] Authentication Token
> >
> >Nick,
> >
> >     Well put. I like the extensibility of the RequesterIdentity
> structure
> > (i.e. the SupportingInfo). Perhaps we could add SupportingInfo to
> > ClaimedIdentity. In the EPM profile draft I had reused
> RequesterIdentity
> > as an OptionalInput.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_wor
kgroup.php.