Re: [security-services] HolderOfKey and SenderVouches are slippingthru the cracks(!)

[Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@sun.com>]

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
> 
> Holder of Key is absolutely critical to our intentions for SAML. If SAML
> cannot specify an attribute assertion whose subject is identified by the
> holder of a key we have been sold a pup.
> 
> The processing model is irrelevant in that instance as Prateek points out.
> There is nevertheless a need for interoperability between implementations.
> [..snip..]
> The lack of a sanction in
> the standard will not prevent that use, it will merely lead to incompatible
> identifiers for the same function.

fyi:

I've spoken with Prateek, Hal, and Phill about this.

Prateek will be supplyinig more polished text to include in bindings-model-xx
generically defining HolderOfKey and SenderVouches, along the lines of my
suggestion here..

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200204/msg00031.html

..and Hal's..

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200204/msg00034.html


JeffH