Re: [security-services] Blog post on Change Notify / comments on Aug 24 meeting

[Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>]

Thanks. I agree.  

Let's stay with NewSubject etc.

Will change to BaseID/NameID/EncryptedID.

Phil
phil.hunt@oracle.com




On 2010-09-01, at 1:15 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:

>> Hmmm. I was kind of following the way ManageNameIDRequest was set up. Is
>> this not the preferred way?
> 
> That wasn't a terribly well thought out message, and it mostly just got
> copied from Liberty.
> 
>> I am open to using "NewPrincipal"/"ChangePrincipal"/"RetirePrincipal".
> How
>> do others feel?
> 
> I don't specifically object to using Subject, I simply noted that I don't
> think you want the saml:Subject element in there. The "standard" way to
> identify a principal in SAML is a BaseID/NameID/EncryptedID choice triple.
> You'll see that in various places.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
>