RE: RSA Interop optional use cases

Based on the last call, I had the impression that the federation/defederation use case was far more important to demo as an optional case than the other 3. Personally, in this demo environment, I don’t find IDP discovery very interesting and it’s more network configuration than I think is worth dealing with.

Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer
RSA Security Inc.
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com

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

samldemotech message