RE: SAML configuration/interoperability woes

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

I don't think plug-and-play is a requirement for SAML.  I think our
requirement is run-time interoperability, but not setup/configuration.
Certainly we want to make configuration easy as possible, but negotiation of
configuration parameters leads us to the bootstrap problem.  We can be
successful with SAML 1.0 by ensuring run-time interop, IMHO

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:42 AM
> To: OASIS SAML; Mishra, Prateek
> Subject: SAML configuration/interoperability woes
> 
> 
> Continuing from Browser Artifact question
> 
> When I look on the F2F-binding paper, paragraph 3.1.2 I get some
> feelings that this is not designed for plug-and-play.  Specifics:
> 
> - The sample PartnerID is supposed to be communicated out-of-band
> - There is no place to store the assertion "pull" URL
> - Are the type-code to be registered?
> 
> Artifacts introduce new problems that IMHO have not yet gotten
> suitable generic solutions.
> 
> Minor detail: B64 encoding means Base64?  If so I would add
> that this in turn must be URL-encoded as well to not get problems
> with "=".
> 
> rgds
> Anders R
> 
>