[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Back office scenarios / W-10
Excellent. One thought : We should add firewall issues/scenarios when crossing company boundaries. I agree that firewall issues would be therer even internally, but are more difficult when we cross organizationl boundaries. The boeing scenario by Mike had the firewall opportunities. Thoughts ? -k. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Gravengaard [mailto:eric@reactivity.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:16 PM > To: ksankar@cisco.com; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > > Krishna, > > I have attached a similar use case write up. I would be > interested in helping to work through the differences between > Darren's and mine, although they are minor and mostly deal > with the nature of mine as crossing company boundaries. Let > me know how I can help with this work item. > > Cheers, > > Eric > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:48 PM > To: 'Eve L. Maler'; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [security-services] 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]