[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [security-services] Minutes for Focus Group, Tuesday Nov 06
Agenda - OASIS SSTC Focus Group - Tuesday Nov 6 Dial in info: +1 334 262 0740 #856956 Attendees: Joe P Carlisle A Prateek M Chris M Scott C Jeff B Gil P Steve A Jason R Darren P Hal L Thomas H Don F Irving R No Prior Agenda Items left over from last call Solicit items Firm up F2F agenda - Prateek: 1 issue carried forward: Sec props of assertion handles - Says it’s now closed - Prateek: concerning F2F, as bindings doc comes together, wants to discuss interrelationship with core - Sounds like it needs coverage during F2F - Don: How will one do verification of signature, e.g. on attrib assertion - Prateek: why is this an interop question? Why do we care? - Why go back to authority at all? Dig Signed doc, just need root cert - Don: don’t have that - Hal: have to start with something, or you couldn’t trust authority either - Gil: XKMS can solve this - RLBob: had similar issues in Shib, opted to leave in realm of PKI - Consensus is that this is out of scope F2F - Day 1 is Bindings - Bindings doc is due out tomorrow - Prateek: might slip one day - Will also deal with XMLDsig - Day 2 will start a little late due to XKMS call (All are invited to XKMS call) - will cover Core doc - reconciliation issues with bindings doc - security considerations (1 hr) - interop testing - Irving’s multiple name identifier issue - Joe: thought this was closed (Irving not on call yet) - will verify - Brief discussion on IPR - When published to OASIS, will need documentation on this - Not expecting to reach final wording at F2F, but want to get good discussion - Leaves ~2 hrs for reconciliation - Prateek: that sounds sufficient - Final agenda will go out today - F2F will start at 9 on Tue and 9:30 on Wed - XKMS call starts at 8 on Wed - Expected outcome from F2F is a something very close to draft spec - Intent is to release it out of committee 1 Mar - Prateek: thinks we can achieve that - Remaining tasks involve wording, normative vs. example text Scott: Minor issue from shib call - Had issue where an attrib authority is collecting attribs from many different sources, and one is not available during a given call - What to do? - Shib decided not to specify behavior - In SAML, what is intention of completeness specifier - RLBob: recalls that this was, in fact, intended to address problem where attrib authority cannot return all attrs for whatever reason, security or otherwise - Prateek: agrees, flag tells AA to give any available or to fail if all can’t be returned - Scott: sounds like language in spec is too strict - Irving: do you send back a success code with no assertions or a failure code? text not clear - RLBob: seems to be great uncertainty, - Scott: suggests this get raised at F2F Scott: another fault code idea from SOAP - Suggestion to revise dot codes and replace with nested XML - Will forward to list Adjourned -- Steve Anderson OpenNetwork Technologies sanderson@opennetwork.com 727-561-9500 x241
begin:vcard n:Anderson;Steve tel;fax:727-561-0303 tel;work:727-561-9500 x241 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.opennetwork.com org:OpenNetwork Technologies version:2.1 email;internet:sanderson@opennetwork.com title:Product Architect adr;quoted-printable:;;13577 Feather Sound Drive=0D=0ASuite 330;Clearwater;Florida;33762;USA x-mozilla-cpt:;-15216 fn:Steve Anderson end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC