[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] [Fwd: SAML for ebXML Registry 3.0 Specifications]
Yes, I will add it to the agenda. -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:35 PM To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [regrep] [Fwd: SAML for ebXML Registry 3.0 Specifications] FYI... Richard tells me that the regrep-comment list is bouncing. Anyone know why? In any event here is his comment which he CCed me on. I have heard the same issue that Richard raises from other advanced users of ebXML Registry. As you may recall we have alignment with SAML planned for version 4. Given that OASIS Security Services TC: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=security has already approved SAML 1.1 it becomes more significant that we address SAML integration with ebXML Registry standard. Based on Richard's comment I have started looking into what it will take to support single signon based upon SAML 1.1 standard. Preliminary research on SAML SOAP Binding: *http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3405/oasis-sstc-saml- bindings-1.1.pdf* shows that we could easily add SAML 1.1 (and later SAML 2.0) support with no changes to RIM and minor changes to ebRS. The change would be to describe how SAML assertions are communicated within a SOAP-ENV:Body (see line 354 in SAML Bindings doc). It seems that this could be a LOW Effort / HIGH Return feature to add to our 3.0 specs and I am willing to do the spec changes in ebRS 2.7 to accommodate it. An open issue is whether SAML support should be required or optional feature for ebXML Registry. Kathryn, can we please place this request on our agenda for next meeting? Thanks. -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]