Re: [security-services] New work product requests submitted

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

On 9/12/12 9:52 AM, "Chet Ensign" <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote:
>
>Regarding the conformance clauses, this is the first time I have seen
>the idea come up. My initial reaction is this: if you envision this as
>one large multi-part work product - that is, that core, bindings,
>profiles,etc. are all going to be parts of 'SAML 2.1' then (a) we'll
>need to think about some master overview document to point to all the
>parts and (b) a separate conformance clauses document is fine.

Well, the original standards worked like that, a set of documents
submitted as one standard. We never did an overview in the sense you mean
it, so that would be new. I suppose in some sense, core was meant to be
the intro document, but I suspect for lots of reasons we need something
else. Right now, I'm focused on the work of just getting the new drafts in
place.

>If each is considered a stand-alone spec however - that is, if SAML
>2.1 Bindings could become an OASIS Standard all by itself - then the
>current rules call for it to have its own conformance section.

I don't think we'd be doing that for any work products we did for 2.1
itself.

>I can take up the question of having a conformance CS document that
>all other CSes would normatively reference. It is an interesting idea
>& I can see pluses and minuses to it worth thinking through.

Well, it's what we did before, that's all. The main reason was that for
the most part you can't talk about SAML conformance other than at the
profile level. The rest is too generic.

-- Scott