RE: Substitution Groups Reconsidered

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

The article appears to me to be saying 'here's why not to bother learning
about these things, you can get along without them'.

However the choice mechanism does not permit the declaration of new
assertion types as first class extensions of SAML and is thus unacceptable.

Since we have gone over this at length at the F2F it is disappointing that
the matter is being re-opened. Other groups who want to build on top of SAML
(XACML) are already working on the assumption that SAML will permit
extension to meet their needs. The idea that SAML should be arbirarily
restricted to a particular problem domain, both in version 1 and in all
future versions is not supported by any use case or requirement and indeed
is directly against the original principles the group agreed upon.

		Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:43 AM
> To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Substitution Groups Reconsidered
> 
> 
> We are having trouble finding a Java data binding framework, 
> either open
> source or commercial which supports substitution groups. 
> Castor seems to be
> a leader in this area and it currently does not support them. 
> Does anyone
> have any suggestions? Is this reason to reconsider 
> substitution groups in
> SAML 1.0? We have seen some commentaries suggesting that 
> substitution groups
> are an XML schema feature to be avoided. See for example:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/kohsukekawaguchi/XMLSchemaDOsAndDONTs.html
> 
> Hal
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf