[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Groups -sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded
I'm making inquiries on this front via contacts within my company, and I'll report as soon as I can. ::Ari > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Scavo [mailto:trscavo@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:29 PM > To: Scott Cantor > Cc: Ari Kermaier; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [security-services] Groups - > sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded > > > On 8/15/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > > But w.r.t. stability of drafts, my main concern is that AFAIK > > > this profile was originally submitted to support a particular > > > use case defined by certain US government agencies. > > > > Right, but I haven't heard from those constituencies > lately. Is the draft > > still needed? Whose RFP needs were being addressed and do > they still have > > them? > > > > > As interoperability with these already existing deployments is > > > likely to be a major driver of adoption of this profile, we > > > should take care not to break interop with the original > > > profile if at all possible. > > > > As originally conceived, there could be no existing > deployments since it was > > being written while SAML 2.0 was being written. Have there > been deployments > > since? If so, it's worth asking how well that went. > > These questions are paramount. If backwards compatibility with > previous drafts is a goal, many of my previous comments are irrelevant > and many of Ari's concerns are non-issues. We need to answer this > question before spinning our wheels further. > > Tom >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]