RE: [security-services] From commitee draft to committee specification

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

> I'm in favor of moving the SAML 1.1 Metadata CD to CS status. In as 
> much as this is a normative document, and one that we would like to see 
> support for in the marketplace, I think it is appropriate to move it 
> forward.

That's been my feeling once the document process was cleared up a bit and
also once I felt that others were implementing some of the metadata work. I
don't see any impediment to these documents becoming committee specs just
like the original set of documents are.

> I don't know if attestations are required to advance to CS, but I can 
> attest that Trustgenix has successfully implemented the current 
> specification (and we interop tested our implementation at Catalyst 
> this week).

Likewise, as well as the forthcoming CD that supports the stand-alone query
extension (in our case at least, but we didn't test it in the interop).

With a clear process in place, I would further propose that the metadata
extension document act as a container for any extensions to the 2.0 md
schema required by TC-advanced profiles, and thus can be revised and
resubmitted for review and CS status along with any later profiles that come
along and add to it.

So we could hold off the review step for that draft if any additional
(metadata) extension work is proposed.

-- Scott