FW: SAML 2.1 Doc Template Requests

Hey All,

Paul and Chet would like to take a slightly different approach with the SAML 2.1 spec documents by following a new “multi-part” document approach. Attached is a word document from them describing what this would look like for us. To me, this sound reasonable but I wanted to get everyone’s agreement that it was the right way to go forward.

From: Paul Knight [mailto:paul.knight@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 9:42 AM
To: La Joie, Chad
Cc: Chet Ensign
Subject: Fwd: SAML 2.1 Doc Template Requests

Hi Chad,

I wanted to check back with you on the template requests for SAML v2.1.

The big question - should we plan to follow the "multi-part" approach which was developed and agreed (with Scott Cantor and also Tom Hardjono, I believe) back in September 2012? I think that is the best approach to producing a unified SAML v2.1 OASIS Standard.

(The templates and entire process for publishing the set of documents will differ, depending on this choice.)

Please review the messages in the TC email list which I cited below, or if you'd like me and/or Chet to join a TC meeting to discuss this so the TC can have a clear understanding of the approach, please let us know.

Best regards,

Paul

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Knight <paul.knight@oasis-open.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: SAML 2.1 Doc Template Requests
To: "La Joie, Chad" <Chad.LaJoie@covisint.com>
Cc: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>

Hi Chad,

I just realized/rediscovered that we went through this exercise back in September, and arrived at a pretty good understanding of how to proceed using a "multi-part" approach.

At that time, we worked pretty closely with Scott Cantor to discuss and arrive at the structure. The email messages are in the TC's email archive. See https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201209/msg00013.html through https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201209/msg00019.html.

At that time, we had 8 documents defined, plus an "overview" document. The structure was designed to be extensible, to include any number of parts (well, up to 99 easily).

I'm attaching a short document describing the structure in more detail. In addition, the later email messages cited above include some discussion of handling working draft numbers (they don't need to be kept aligned in each submission package) and the delivery of the entire group of "parts" for each publication event.

Please take a good look at that earlier material, and let's figure out if that is still a pretty good starting point. I'll be very happy to fill in any gaps in terms of additional "part" templates, etc.

security-services message