[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Proposed glossary definition of 'Assertion'
Marlena, > [Hal wrote:] > >Should one of the definitions include the idea that the Authority is > >considered and authoritative source of this information by > some set of > >relying parties? It seems a little feeble to just say > "declaration" or > >"claim being asserted". Perhaps this notion should go in the > Authority > >definition? > > I don't agree with this idea. On the contrary, I "assert" that > "authoritativeness" is in the eye of the beholder. > > Since I've written about this before (to the Core > subcommittee, see below) > I gather that you, Hal, do not consider me authoritative on > this subject > -- even though I have pushed the above assertion to you. :-) Yes, I remember our previous discussion and I agree that the actual way the information in assertions gets used is a matter of local (and invisible to SAML) policy. However, what I was trying to get at is that it seems there is something special about Authorities that makes them Authorities as opposed to information sources everybody ignores. The mere fact that you bother to obtain an assertion is suggestive that you plan to employ its contents in some way, even if you plan to take it with a grain of salt, cross check it against something else, etc. This would become very clear if Authorities charged money (either by subscription or per assertion). Presumably most people would not pay for information which they do not intend to use in any way. I don't think this is that vital a point. I was really trying get a sense of the group's consensus, if any, on the idea that Authorities are somehow special. I have no problem leaving this descriptive content out of the definition. Hal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC