[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-SX TC Minutes, Mar 01 2006
Thanks for the clarifications. I found some of the discussion very hard to record and I apologize for any errors and false attributions. I will try to fix these parts when I add the roll call to the minutes. If anyone else has suggested changes please let me know ASAP. /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: March 1, 2006 12:15 PM > To: Paul Cotton; ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-SX TC Minutes, Mar 01 2006 > > > Scott Cantor asked why SP supported supporting tokens if there was not > > enough information for the client to know what to do with it. Scott > > asked how the usage attribute in the security token reference will get > > filled in. > > This wasn't me. Not sure who it was. All I said was that I felt the > discussion was conflating one sort of policy (I think security is too > vague > a word, period) with what I would call "authorization" policy, but you > could > use the words access or application there as well. I think TonyN used > "application" to mean the same thing I meant. > > > i031 Clarification for UsernameToken assertion See thread at: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200602/msg00091.html > > Corina Witt stated that the SP should define what features of a token > > are used. Scott Cantor asked why SP shouldn't be used to specify what > > SAML assertions were required in a specific token instance. > > Actually, I think I was more saying that based on what I was hearing, it > shouldn't (and I did say that it's not confined to SAML, almost all tokens > have a lot of variability, including some Kerberos flavors). I wasn't > expressing an opinion as to whether it should. > > > Scott Cantor suggested that it would be useful to know how to link > > "application level security" to the information expressed by SP. > > Not sure I said it, but I agree with it. > > Thx, > -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]