[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Draft Minutes for SSTC Conference Call Tuesday 14 May 2013, 12:00pm ET
Draft Minutes for SSTC Conference Call Tuesday 14 May 2013, 12:00pm ET > AGENDA: > 1. Roll Call & Agenda Review. Scott Cantor Thomas Hardjono Mohammad Jafari Chad La Joie Mark Lambiase Anil Saldana Quorum achieved. > 2. Need a volunteer to take minutes. Mark volunteers. > 3. Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s): > - Minutes from SSTC Call on 16 April 2013: > - Minutes from SSTC Call on 30 April 2013: > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201305/msg00000.html Chad moves to accept the minutes for both meetings, Mohamed seconds. No objections. Motion to approve both meetings minutes is approved. > 4. AIs & progress update on current work-items: > (a) Current electronic ballots: (none) None. > (b) Status/notes regarding past ballots: (none) None. > (c) SAML 2.1 work (Chad) > - SAML2.1 wiki: > https://wiki.oasis-open.org/security/SAML2Revision > > - Chad's list: > https://wiki.oasis-open.org/security/SAML21 > > - Sample ToC for an SSO Profile: > https://wiki.oasis-open.org/security/SAML21ExampleProtocol Chad: The email contains recommendation on how to take the current and new profiles and basically split them up in a way that (hopefully) lumps like things together. A couple of statements at the end inviting discussion or comment. Thomas: Will SAML core stay? Chad: Yes. Basic processing rules that will cut across everything will stay in core. Section 3, beginning of the protocol section, a number of those items that are profile specific will move to a profile document. All of the things that cut across profiles will remain in the core. Scott: Would it make sense to move some of that stuff in to the binding documents. And turn the core documents in to assertions. Chad: The goal was for someone trying to implement to be able to pick up the relevant document and have a complete source of information, rather than having to parse multiple documents to get a full picture of how to implement. Does it make sense to have it as a separate document, and have the ability to update it separately. Rather than having to update the core specification, or write errata. Scott: based on the history of limited updates, it may make sense to keep in core. > (d) Conceptual/overview of Metadata (Rainer Hoerbe) > - Any updates? > http://files.hoerbe.at/daunlod/eadocx-quickdoc.pdf Rainer is not on the call. Topic deferred. > (e) SAML ECP (Scott) > - Scott seeking CD approval for SAML ECP. > - Note: WD has been uploaded > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201304/msg00007.html Scott: uploaded a new version. ECP assumes not knowing the IdP ahead of time. Added a feature to allow requesting of delegation. Otherwise the other material was not touched, except for some cleanup. A typo is noted, but it is not normative and does not warrant a new draft. Channel binding extensions, working draft 6, uploaded April 8. ECP 2.0 draft 8, uploaded last night. Scott: Motion to move those to committee draft. Chad seconds. No discussion or objections. Motion passes. Scott made a motion to move the drafts to initial public review (30 days). Chad seconds. No discussion or objections. Motion passes. > (f) XPA updates (Mohammad Jafari) > - Any updates? Mohammad: Meeting tomorrow at 1pm EDT. All are invited to join XPA. No other items. > (g) Updating SAML.org > - Thomas to contact Chet > (h) Sending "hints" about subject name in SAML AuthN Request > - IIW Discussion Thomas: Mike Jones (Microsoft) convened a session on how to provide 'hints'; user hitting RP, when RP asks for username it may be the case that the user is using a different name than the subject (maybe an alias). How do you simulate this when using SAML. Chad: Isn't that the point of the name/ID mapping, to keep track of those things? Scott: Not sure I understand what they are wanting. Thomas: If the IdP returns the wrong name... Scott: They don't want that to be an error. They are speaking of personas. The subject matching rules are not what they are in SAML. Thomas + Scott: this could be solved in an extension. Scott: Either the feature exists or an extension is required... There seemed to be some talk that extensions break backward compatibility, but then how to you move forward and add functionality? > 5. Assorted mail items: None. > 6. Other items: > - IIW in May. Scott noted that implementers should be aware of work being done in the XML signature space. > 7. Next SSTC Call: > - Tuesday 28 May 2013.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]