[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] RE: IBM charter position (was [security-services]Groups - sstc-saml-charter-2.0-draft-02.doc uploaded)
Anthony Nadalin wrote on 11/16/2003, 9:31 PM: > > Thanks for the comments but I'm confused, it seems that OMA has chosen to > accept Liberty 1.1 for SSO but complete federated identity is still > out of > scope for the phase 1 work. So it seem that any immediate urgency from > the > mobile community can be solved by the specifications the Liberty group > has > encouraged the OMA to accept., So what is pushing the urgency in the > SS-TC, can't folks use the Liberty specifications ? Maybe you can get > some > of your customers to help us understand why what Liberty group has > encouraged the OMA to accept is not sufficient. 1) what OMA has chosen to do or not do is not at issue here. Clearly there are many politicial and resource isses involved in any decision that may be made by such an organization. 2) There is not a sudden "urgency" within the SSTC to encompass federation. Federation, to many of us, is clearly a part of the SSO environment and needs to be solved to enable reasonable SSO across identity domains. This is a natural place in the evolution of the SAML specs to address this and "urgency" only comes to mind by people trying to stop the process. 3) The adoption of the SSO portion of the Liberty specifications without the federation portions (assuming this is true, I haven't seen any public announcements of such adoptions) flies in the face of your concern about SAML generating a "monolithic" specification. Clearly the SSO mechanisms are separate and distinct from the federation mechanisms. > You are welcome to attend the public workshops on the various WS-* > specifications. RSA is joining us next week, and maybe Nokia could > participate with the authors and other companies. These workshops > allows an open exchange under RF rules prior to submitting the > specifications to astandards body. That is not our understanding of the conditions for participation in those workshops. First off, they are not joint specification work, but rather "one-way give us input, we'll decide what to do" type meetings. Secondly the terms for such meetings require legal agreements from people other than the authors without providing equally binding agreements upon the authors. If you want real participation in the development of the WS-* specs, you need to bring them into a standards body. Conor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]