Re: [security-services] Proposed clean up on subject text

[Ron Monzillo <Ronald.Monzillo@Sun.COM>]

I agree that it would be simpler to avoid claims and use statememts.

Assuming that all the statements in an  assertion with 
subject-confirmations, are suitable for use
by a confirmed entity, then use of the term claims would seem to offer 
no additional value over
the use of the term statement.

ALternatively, maybe we could say that by statisfying the 
subjectconfirmation, an entity is claiming
the statements in the assertion for its use.

Ron

Scott Cantor wrote:

>>>Note that "associate claims with" does not mean "the claims are about".
>>>      
>>>
>>I've actually been reading some philosophy of language 
>>recently, but I still can't figure out what you mean by this.
>>    
>>
>
>I think in common usage the latter is a more specific relationship than the
>former. "Associate" is pretty vague, with one definition being "To connect
>or join together; combine."
>
>Clearly the statements are always about the subject. But they are not always
>about the confirming/attesting entity, even if they are associated with it
>based on the confirmation method.
>
>However I must admit the formal definition of "about" is not significantly
>different than "associated". I don't have a better suggestion.
>
>I think it's worth asking if anybody even understands the distinction being
>made here. If not, maybe we should just use the word "impersonation", define
>it technically, and be done with this game-playing. This is after all
>impersonation and one-hop delegation.
>
>  
>
>>But actually what I want to express concern about is the word "claims". 
>>    
>>
>
>I was using it because I was incorporating Ron's text, but "statements" is
>fine by me.
>
>-- Scott
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>