[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [saml-dev] SAML InterOp one pager and Slide Set
Yes :-) Should have been "tangible".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Bowen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:33 PM
> To: Mishra, Prateek
> Cc: 'dee schur'; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [saml-dev] SAML InterOp one pager and Slide Set
> Questions and comments.
> Do we want to mention WS-Security in this presentation? It
> would seem to me to beg the question "What is WS-Security",
> which I don't think we are answering (and shouldn't). We
> should have an answer for anyone that asks, but it just
> seemed out of place to me.
I would like to see my "Points to Make..." incorporated. That we we can say the Demo is not about Web Services, but SAML supports many environments, including Web Services.
> On slide 3 where we say what SAML is it seems less tangent
> than the "SAML is NOT" slide bullets.
I don't understand. Did you mean some other word than "tangent"?
Understood. Not sure I can explain what I meant and it now seems moot to me.
> Rather than WS-Security on slide 4 should we mention some of
> the other profiles? That seems more appropriate to me.
> I wonder if the order might be better if it was:
> - SAML is...
> - SAML is NOT...
> - SAML Profiles
> On slide 6 it says that several products are available today,
> but won't this confuse people when the standard is not yet
> "complete"? Maybe just me :-)
It is now a committee specification. This is the point of implementation. Real product have been announced and are available for purchase (including ours) The demo shows that they really can interoperate, this is not a paper spec. IMO that is what customers want.
> On slide 7 is it appropriate to say that each vendor
> implements web browser profile?
I like Interop Demo.
> Slide 10, the "Flows" slide seems like it would be better
> after "SAML Interop Details" and before "Types of Interop
> Sites". What about adding a box showing the user in the flow?
> Also, will it be clear to people that the username and
> password are inputs provided during the "Authenticate (out of
> band)" step?
> We are using Interop, Demonstration and Demo. Maybe we should
> use just one of those terms?
I vote for Interop Demo or Interop Demonstration
> "Signon" on slide 11 should be two words. I might even change
> that first bullet to "Sign on to any portal".
> On slide 13 it seems like the wording on the second
> sub-bullet need to be fixed. Possibly "...can be used at
> portal or content sites"
> My understanding was that this preso would run continuously
> on a table somewhere, though I don't remember asking anyone
> to provide a machine. We discussed it being 10 minutes long,
> but it shouldn't be any longer in my opinion. Who is going to
> put this preso into that form? I would be happy to do it.
> There are a few more tiny edits I'd do like making the boxes
> on slide 10 the same size and cosmetic stuff like that.
We can set this up during the weekend. Some people (like me) won't have much to do.
Description: Card for Don Bowen
Powered by eList eXpress LLC