RE: [security-services] SAML extensions example

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

Since the current Section 6 reference to XTAML is talking about it as an
example of an application that extends SAML *assertions*, I think the
Liberty substitution would be okay.  Sure, parts of Liberty can be confusing
from a SAML extension perspective, but Liberty's extension of
saml:AssertionType seems like a reasonable replacement for section 6.

Rob Philpott 
RSA Security Inc. 
The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: 'Eve L. Maler'; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [security-services] SAML extensions example
> 
> > Hmm, yeah.  I was hoping that they would just be illustrative of the
> > mechanics of how you extend SAML types to do your own thing, and looking
> > at XTAML at this point would probably just be confusing.  Do you think
> > Liberty would serve all right in this capacity?
> 
> I think *parts* of Liberty do, but some parts end up confusing a person if
> they don't have time to look deeper.
> 
> Extending Request and Response can throw one for a loop, for example,
> whereas extending Subject or AuthenticationStatement is more
> in keeping with the point you're trying to make.
> 
> 1.2 goes a little farther along those lines, with several new Statements,
> for example.
> 
> -- Scott