RE: [security-services] SAML 2.1 Protocol Reorg Idea

["La Joie, Chad" <Chad.LaJoie@covisint.com>]

What material would be duplicated?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:security-
> services@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:30 AM
> To: La Joie, Chad; OASIS SSTC (security-services@lists.oasis-open.org)
> Subject: Re: [security-services] SAML 2.1 Protocol Reorg Idea
> 
> On 12/31/12 10:04 AM, "La Joie, Chad" <Chad.LaJoie@covisint.com> wrote:
> >
> >Let's pick on SSO as an example.  The idea would be to create an SSO
> >Profile document that consisted of Core section3.4[1] and Profile
> >sections 4.2 and 4.2[1].  Such a document, I think, would provide an
> >implementer a more comprehensive view of what it takes to implement
> the
> >SSO function.  A more detailed discussion on the use of metadata could
> >also be added.  People wishing to extend or reuse the SSO protocol, or
> >its elements, can continue to do so but will point to this document
> >instead of the core and protocol documents.
> 
> I think there are two main problems with that approach:
> 
> - dealing with the bindings
> - avoiding duplication of material
> 
> Metadata is also something of a concern but is more or less included in the
> second of those.
> 
> The original document design was primarily focused not on approachability
> but composability so that material wouldn't get duplicated. The assumption
> was that the best way to deal with approachability was not in specs but in
> separate documentation explaining things. I don't think we will ever have
> such documentation, but I'm still not sure that duplicating so much material is
> a good idea either.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: security-services-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: security-services-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>