Re: [saml-dev] Which version to use?

["Kapil Sachdeva" <ksachdeva@sbcglobal.net>]

Got it. Michael. As a conclusion I would say new implementations should just 
focus on SAML 2.0.

Thanks guys for answers.

Regards
Kapil Sachdeva
http://www.dotnetcard.com/blogs/ksachdeva


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Beach, Michael C" <michael.c.beach@boeing.com>
To: "Reid, Irving" <irving.reid@hp.com>; "Kapil Sachdeva" 
<ksachdeva@sbcglobal.net>; "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Cc: <saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] Which version to use?


Just to emphasize Irving's point.  The Liberty Alliance states no more
work will be done on ID-FF because it has been turned over to OASIS.  I
don't mean this in a derogatory way, but ID-FF is effectively a "dead
end".  Yes it works, yes it was quality work, yes it benefited the
industry, but I personally don't see why a new project would consider
using ID-FF over SAMLv2 (unless you are deploying NOW and need concrete
stable standards NOW).  The future along this path is SAMLv2.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Reid, Irving [mailto:irving.reid@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 2:09 PM
To: Kapil Sachdeva; Scott Cantor
Cc: saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] Which version to use?

> From: Kapil Sachdeva [mailto:ksachdeva@sbcglobal.net]
...
> Scott, I am also sure vendors will implement both as they will be left

> with no other choice like having a merge of SAML & Liberty standard
> into one.

SAMLv2 *is* the merge of SAML and Liberty ID-FF standards into one. That
is why Liberty contributed their ID-FF work to OASIS; both organizations
agreed that it would be best to move to a single standard, managed by an
acknowledged public standards body.

 - irving -