[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Back office scenarios / W-10
Hi all, The B2B scenario from Darren Platt (in pdf format !). So far, I can see, W-10 has two components - carry over (rejected) items from SAML 1.x, and the back office scenario. a) During F2F we decided not to reiterate the action/aggregation of multiple bid use case, which I think is the (rejected) carry over from the 1.x days for W-10. b) The back office scenario, a good use case from Darren, fits into the web service work item (I think it was W-15 or W-16. Just as a pointer, W-11 was also collapsed with that work item, I think) So my suggestion is : Retire W-10, add Darren's use case to the web service work item. A related question : The W-11 is related to firewall traversal. I hope we have that item still in the works. This *could* be slightly different from assertions across web services. Haven't seen the new work item list. -k. -----Original Message----- From: Darren Platt [mailto:darren@pingid.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:55 AM To: ksankar@cisco.com Hi Krishna, A brief write-up is attached. Let me know if you want more detail. Sorry I didn't get this to you before the F2F. Darren > -----Original Message----- > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:53 PM > To: darren@pingid.com > Subject: RE: Back office scenarios > > > Darren, > > Thanks. A description of the scenario would be excellent. Also if > you have any more general ideas, pl add them in. I do not think > we have time > to discuss but should be able to go over a couple of rounds over e-mail. I > will present the ideas at the f2f (if we get a slot). > > -k. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Darren Platt [mailto:darren@pingid.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:51 PM > > To: ksankar@cisco.com > > > > Hi Krishna, > > > > Let me know how you would like to work together on the > > back-office scenario > > issue we signed up for on the concall. I have a pretty good > > recollection of > > what we intended when we suggested it, but not having been > > involved in SAML > > for a while, I'm not sure what else it may now mean. > > > > If you'd like, I could write up a description of a scenario > > for what I have > > in mind and send it to you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Darren > > > > ******************************************** > > Darren Platt > > Ping Identity Corporation > > darren@pingid.com > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]