security-services message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Conference Call Agenda for May 13, 2003
- From: "Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>
- To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:26:16 -0400
Caller paid: +1 865 673
3239
Access code: 238-3466
Please remember to key in "#" after
the access code.
1. Acceptance of minutes
from previous conference call
2. Review of time-line and
next steps
3. Open
Actions
#0004 Propose WSDL for
Metadata
Prateek
Mishra
#0013 Request use of
WS-Trust for CC proposal
Maryann
Hondo
#0033 Create differences
between SAML 1.0 and 1.1 document
Prateek
Mishra
#0034 Correct schema use of
xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF
Eve
Maler
#0039 Issues with
DoNotCacheCondition
Prateek
Mishra
(a) do we care about
cardinality?
(b) Explain when DoNotCacheCondition is
valid
- line [468]
"MUST not" should be "MUST NOT" ?
- line [553]
"MUST not" should be "MUST NOT" ?
- about <DoNotCacheCondition> element
The processing rules of the sub-elements and attributes of a
<Conditions> element are described at line 485-492.
To make the relying party possible to follow this rules, each
<Condition> element (extension of ConditionAbstractType) should
have
a clear definition of when it evaluates to Valid.
Current description in 2.3.2.1.4 mentions nothing about its validity.
# I wonder if it is suitable to define <DoNotCacheCondition> as a
# sub-element of a <Conditions>. (It is like Obligation in
XACML.)
#0040 Editorial comments on
SAML 1.1 document set
(any others received before
the conference call)
----------------------
Prateek Mishra
Netegrity
p: 781-530-6564
c: 781-308-5198
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]