[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [imi] Token profile issue with AppliesTo and AudienceRestriction
Arun reviewed our discussion thread and decided to drop his
objection. This means that we can resolve issue IMI-28 as “Won’t
Fix” or whatever this issue tracker’s equivalent is. As part
of the resolution, I’ll make the corresponding change to the SAML 1.1 token
profile. Arun’s reasoning went as follows: Actually, I had forgotten about the fact that the
recommended default behavior of selectors in the IMI spec was to NOT include
the <AppliesTo> element in the RST request, which really makes the
default behavior cater to IdP's that are non-auditing and issue
"un-scoped" tokens. By implication, the Selector sends the
<AppliesTo> element only when the IdP demands it or when the RP specifies
it -- in either case, the client including that info is an explicit expression
of intent to restrict the "scope" of the issued token. So I would
agree with this assessment and retract the original suggestion. --
Mike From: John Bradley
[mailto:jbradley@mac.com] The wsp:AppliesTo element in the RST is set by the user
agent based on the card. The issuer has three choices 11.7 The Issuer has complete control over everything but the
optional case. I think if the issuer has issued a Auditing or Auditing
optional card they MUST honour the ic:RequireAppliesTo in the RST. If that is not a requirement of the SAML 1.1 tokens I will
need to revisit the ICAM profile. We would need to make it a requirement if it is not covered
in the IMI spec. We say the card must have the ic:RequireAppliesTo, I don't
think we called out that the STS must honour it. If the RP issues unscoped tokens it shouldn't issue cards
that say they support scoped tokens. John B. On 2009-12-15, at 3:13 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
The
SAML 2.0 token profile currently says: If
the request contains a <wsp:AppliesTo> element, then a <saml:AudienceRestriction> containing a <saml:Audience> element MUST be
included with the value of that element. As
part of the review of the draft SAML 1.1 token profile, Arun Nanda
commented: “This is overkill IMO. If an IdP is an open IdP that
issues ‘unscoped’ tokens for consumption by any RP, it should not
be forced to encode an audience in the issued token just because the request
included it. So, may be SHOULD is preferred here…” I
tend to agree with Arun. I think we should make this change. That’s
the language I’m using in the 1.1 profile. After discussion,
I’ll file an issue about this too.
-- Mike |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]