[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Vocabularies
Another issue that was touched on during the face-to-face was vocabularies or syntaxes for naming entities such as subjects, actions and attributes. Examples that came up: X.500-style* DN or DNS domain for security domains, DN for subject name, DSML for attributes, RWX or HEAD/GET/POST for actions. There's immense opportunity for interoperability in developing a set of common vocabularies for these concepts (while, of course, leaving open a path for extension). A baseline of "level 0" vocabularies for our most common namespaces** would greatly lower the barrier for making SAML work in real-world situations. My concern is that, like digital sigs or encryption, these vocabularies will fall into the gap between core architecture (assertions and messages) and bindings. For these reasons, I'm asking that we add an issue to the issues list along the lines of: Should we specify baseline vocabularies? If so, who will do this work? And what baseline of vocabularies should be specified? ~ESP * If there's a better name for what this is, I'd appreciate a heads-up. My first encounter with this syntax is X.500, so I guess I bookmark it under X.500. ** By which I mean, "type and range of names." Not necessarily XML namespaces. -- Evan Prodromou, Senior Architect eprodromou@securant.com Securant Technologies, Inc. 415-856-9551
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC