Re: RE : [saml-dev] Which version to use?

[Jean-Noël Colin <jean-noel.colin@oxys.be>]

Dear Anastase,

Thank you for your email. My question was more: as SAML 2.0 now 
includes ID-FF, and, from the previous discussion, ID-FF is now a 
dead-end, what will be the status of ID-WSF? Will it be integrated in a 
later release of SAML? Will it exist as a stand-alone specification on 
top of saml 2.0?

Cheers,

Jean-Noel Colin

Le 09-nov.-04, à 09:22, anastase adonis a écrit :

> Dear Jean Noel,
> As you know ID WSF is a basic framework for identity services from
> Liberty Identity. It allows to provide identity sertvice discovery and
> invocation and uses schemas, protocols and profiles. It's previewed for
> web services operations.
>
> Anastase Adonis
> Objective Networks
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jean-Noël Colin [mailto:jean-noel.colin@oxys.be]
> Envoyé : mardi 9 novembre 2004 09:12
> À : Conor P. Cahill
> Cc : Simon James; Reid, Irving; Kapil Sachdeva;
> saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; Beach, Michael C; Scott Cantor
> Objet : Re: [saml-dev] Which version to use?
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to thank you for your replies on my email. So the way I
> understand it is that since we are considering new development, not
> integrating with any existing system, we should consider SAML 2.0, as
> it integrates ID-FF specification.
>
> But what about ID-WSF, which in our case, would be the way to go, as
> all communication between application components will be web-service
> based?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Noel Colin
>
>
> Le 09-nov.-04, à 02:00, Conor P. Cahill a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Beach, Michael C wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:53 PM:
>>
>>> Just to emphasize Irving's point.  The Liberty Alliance states no
>>> more work will be done on ID-FF because it has been turned over to
> OASIS.
>>> I
>>> don't mean this in a derogatory way, but ID-FF is effectively a "dead
>>> end".  Yes it works, yes it was quality work, yes it benefited the
>>> industry, but I personally don't see why a new project would consider
>>> using ID-FF over SAMLv2 (unless you are deploying NOW and need
>>> concrete
>>> stable standards NOW).  The future along this path is SAMLv2.
>>
>> What you say about the future is absolutely true.
>>
>> However, for those intending to interact with other existing services
>> at this time (for example, people who would want to work with Orange's
>
>> identity federation implementation), the will need to implement ID-FF.
>>
>> If I was starting with a clean sheet, I would agree with you that SAML
>
>> 2.0 is the way to go.  If I'm concerned with working with existing
>> implementations at least in the relatively near future, I would do
>> ID-FF (and SAML 2.0 now, or in the near future).
>>
>> The key is timeframe and interoperability that you need to support.
>>
>> Conor
>>
>>
>