Additional Interop scenarios document issues and proposed changes

[Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>]

More interop document suggestions, of two kinds:

1. Editorial
2. Policy

I've attached a red-lined Word document where I've implemented these  
changes, also have Word comments in the doc.

None of my suggestions should impact the interop itself.

Summary:

Editorial
- I suggest we use section numbering and line numbers for ease of  
reference.
- Change background colors in table headers for readability online  
and in print
- fix spelling in text of "KeyInfo" to be correctly capitalized
- fix "RequestSecurityToken/KeySize",  slash was wrong way
- line 404, RTSRC returned containing RSTR

Policy

I attempted to add a Policy statement for each case, for the STS  
policy and for the server policies.
In some cases it wasn't exactly clear what the policy was, for  
example the version of the SAML token profile required etc.

Which version of SAML token profile does interop require, assume it  
requires SAML 1.1 tokens.

I discovered a few potential policy issues:

- how to require separate key derivation for signing and encryption  
versus one key derivation for both
- is it correct/best practice to include IncludeToken on a token  
within a ProtectionToken element to indicate that the token should or  
should not be sent?
- how to state confirmation method requirement in policy (e.g. HoK  
for SAML tokens)

Comment/correction on the policy statements welcome.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

ws-sx-interop-ed-04fjh.doc

ws-sx-interop-ed-04fjh.pdf