RE: RSA Interop optional use cases

[Thomas Wisniewski <Thomas.Wisniewski@entrust.com>]

Title: RSA Interop optional use cases

Bob, we can discuss on Wednesday, but I don't think we should limit it to just one. If there are several vendors that are willing, I think we should definitely attempt this (particularly since we have an opportunity for a dry run). Without the optional cases, we are just doing exactly what was done last year.

 

In any case, here are the rankings from Entrust. We would like to do both of the first 2 at the interop. I will try and put together a strawman use case for the first two prior to Wed's meeting. The third one below is probably a simple use case -- just a matter if folks want to do it. I'll leave the Authn Query to others.

 

(1) From the call, a federation/defederation example was discussed, which would involve extending some of the base use cases and adding a Name Identifier Management case.

(1a) Attribute Query - this should include dynamic values of some wort as discussed on a call a few weeks ago.

(2) Identity Provider Discovery

(4) Authentication Query

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ciochon, Robert [mailto:Robert.Ciochon@ca.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:02 PM
To: samldemotech
Subject: RSA Interop optional use cases

On Wednesday's call, we ran out of time to discuss any optional use cases for the RSA Interop demo.  The first issue to resolve is if we really want to have optional use cases.  On one hand, these cases will demonstrate that more functionality is available with SAML V2.0.  On the other hand, since all vendors will not be showing the optional functionality, it may appear that SAML V2.0 is not a universally agreed upon standard.  Plus it involves additional effort with greater risk.

Assuming there is interest in pursuing optional use cases, the following were the highest ranked in the vendor survey:

• Identity Provider Discovery
• Attribute Query
• Authentication Query
• From the call, a federation/defederation example was discussed, which would involve extending some of the base use cases and adding a Name Identifier Management case.
  

If you are interested in implementing an optional use case, please indicate which would be your preference based on a
ranking of  1 to 4, with 1 being most interested and 4 the least interested.  I will then tabulate these and begin to define

a proposal of exactly what the use case would be which we can discuss on the next call.   I recommend only 1 optional case

be added due to the time limitations.
Regards,
Bob
 

Robert Ciochon
eTrust Development Manager
Computer Associates
San Diego, California
(858) 625-6866
robert.ciochon@ca.com