RE: [security-services] RE: IBM charter position (was[security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-charter-2.0-draft-02.doc uploaded)

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> >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.
> 
> Have no clue what you are saying can you be more clear ?

I read it as saying what I said before. Identifier federation and a richer
SSO protocol have little or nothing to do with each other. The LA developed
both work items based on the original SAML specification, and both can be
considered independently of the other for incoporation or adaptation in SAML
2.0, on their merits.

That's why they're appropriately separate work items in the scope document.

-- Scott