[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: RE : [saml-dev] Which version to use?
Dear Anastase, Thank you for your email. My question was more: as SAML 2.0 now includes ID-FF, and, from the previous discussion, ID-FF is now a dead-end, what will be the status of ID-WSF? Will it be integrated in a later release of SAML? Will it exist as a stand-alone specification on top of saml 2.0? Cheers, Jean-Noel Colin Le 09-nov.-04, à 09:22, anastase adonis a écrit : > Dear Jean Noel, > As you know ID WSF is a basic framework for identity services from > Liberty Identity. It allows to provide identity sertvice discovery and > invocation and uses schemas, protocols and profiles. It's previewed for > web services operations. > > Anastase Adonis > Objective Networks > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Jean-Noël Colin [mailto:jean-noel.colin@oxys.be] > Envoyé : mardi 9 novembre 2004 09:12 > À : Conor P. Cahill > Cc : Simon James; Reid, Irving; Kapil Sachdeva; > saml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; Beach, Michael C; Scott Cantor > Objet : Re: [saml-dev] Which version to use? > > > Dear all, > > I would like to thank you for your replies on my email. So the way I > understand it is that since we are considering new development, not > integrating with any existing system, we should consider SAML 2.0, as > it integrates ID-FF specification. > > But what about ID-WSF, which in our case, would be the way to go, as > all communication between application components will be web-service > based? > > Best regards, > > Jean-Noel Colin > > > Le 09-nov.-04, à 02:00, Conor P. Cahill a écrit : > >> >> >> Beach, Michael C wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:53 PM: >> >>> 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. >> >> What you say about the future is absolutely true. >> >> However, for those intending to interact with other existing services >> at this time (for example, people who would want to work with Orange's > >> identity federation implementation), the will need to implement ID-FF. >> >> If I was starting with a clean sheet, I would agree with you that SAML > >> 2.0 is the way to go. If I'm concerned with working with existing >> implementations at least in the relatively near future, I would do >> ID-FF (and SAML 2.0 now, or in the near future). >> >> The key is timeframe and interoperability that you need to support. >> >> Conor >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]