[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Bindings Committee Recommendation: SAML HTTP Binding should be mandatory-to-implement
BEA strongly believes in option #2, and will vote that way if asked. This is not a marketing "buzz" but real need. There will still be many many soap 1.1 implementations once soap 1.2 is finished. The IPR issues are a red herring until somebody actually claims infringement. Best to proceed until somebody claims, and back out later if proven wrong. Cheers, Dave At 09:48 PM 10/8/01 -0400, Mishra, Prateek wrote: >Colleagues, > >At the last bindings con-call the following question was debated: > >Which SAML binding should be mandatory-to-implement? > >(a) HTTP >(b) SOAP over HTTP with no intermediaries > >The general consensus in the bindings commitee appeared to lie >with (a) though some dissent was also expressed (Darren P.). > >I would request the chairs that the TC take a formal position on >this issue perhaps thru a vote on October 9. > >In thinking about this issue, please note that we are NOT referring >to the SOAP profile which would continue to be developed within >bindings. > >The argument for (a) include the following: > >(i) SOAP 1.1 IPR is encumbered > >(ii) The results of the XMLP effort (SOAP 1.2) may look quite >different from SOAP 1.1 (XMLP will be ready in Q1/02) > >(iii) other than marketing issues, we do not gain much by utilizing >SOAP at this point > >(iv) "raw" HTTP provides a firmer foundation for our work; notice >that a mandatory-to-implement binding is an additional layer in >the SAML protocol stack. > >Arguments for (b) include: > >(i) SOAP provides a reasonable packaging structure, at least in >the case of SOAP over HTTP > >(ii) SOAP offers a message-level error processing model > >(iii) The two alternatives are essentially the same but choosing >SOAP over HTTP offers SAML, better marketing buzz. > >(iv) There may be patents lurking for any generic XML messaging >framework; even if we choose (a) we may find that patents apply. > >Further discussion may be found in: > >http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-bindings/200110/msg00000.html > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC