Re: [security-services] New Templates for SAML 2.1

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

On 1/21/14, 7:28 PM, "La Joie, Chad" <Chad.LaJoie@covisint.com> wrote:
>
>First question: given our new focus on having these thematic documents
>be, in some regards, "the starting point", should they come immediately
>after the overview in our part list (actual titles to be determined
>later)?

I'm maybe in the minority, but still feel like having foundational
documents earlier is better, with the profiles at the end.

>Second question: we discussed the possibility of rolling security
>considerations into the various thematic documents.  Do we still think
>that's a good idea?

I do.

>Last question: we talked before about the general inadequacy of the
>conformance documentation.  Should we try and roll that in to the
>thematic documents?

I think we ought to look at conformance statements covering the profiles
individually, but not try and build overarching conformance classes that
cover the standard as a whole into those documents.

But I don't know what OASIS actually allows or requires these days.

-- Scott