RE: [dss] Representing requestor's identity

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

John,

Can you identify the specific XAdES attributes that you think are relevant.

If relevant WSS token can be used as a type of object in the supporting
data.  However, Trevor raised a valid question as to whether carring a WSS
Token within the Signature is appropriate.

String name is an example of requestor identity with no type.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
> Sent: 20 May 2003 17:15
> To: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dss] Representing requestor's identity
>
>
>
> I would think that the attributes contained in the contribution
> from you and Nick should be added as a possible source for other
> information supporting the name. The three mentioned in that
> paragraph should not be exclusive. Any method should be
> supported, even ones that we do not know about today, if we are
> simply describing methods of authentication or supplemental
> information about it.
>
> Also, in the first part, where is a WSS security token and string
> name? Are we back to SAML again? I thought we had resolved that issue.
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.es>
> Date:  Tue, 20 May 2003 16:26:25 +0200
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >One of the issues that we should try to deal with during these
> days is the
> >issue of representing requestor's identity and how this should
> be included
> >in the requirements document.
> >So far the latest version of teh requireements document says in its 3.2.1
> >section:
> >
> >"If the server is not signing with a key specific to the requestor, then
> >the server might want to
> >represent the requestor's name, and possibly details of how the requestor
> >authenticated, in a 205
> >signed attribute. We will define an XML element for this purpose, which
> >will contain: 206
> >• Requestor Name (in a type/value format such as a SAML
> NameIdentifier) 207
> >• (Optionally) Information supporting the name (such as a SAML Assertion,
> >Liberty Alliance 208
> >Authentication Context, or X.509 Certificate)"
> >
> >Does this constitute a basis for reaching a consensus or is there anyone
> >thinking that
> >something should be changed or added?
> >
> >
> >Juan Carlos.
> >
> >
> >
> >You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>


You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php