OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Da Capo: First contact

Title: RE: First contact
Hi Tim,
May I discuss this issue a little bit further on the global list (I have
not yet received bindings membership)?  You say the partner IDs
should be agreed bi-laterally.  I don't think that will work too well.
The partner ID must be specified by the RP, otherwise it could
be ambigious and not be properly interpreted.  Working with
plug-and-play, I believe that SAML ought to support a sign-me-up
message to exchange such critical data.  This 32-bit data is BTW
probably not compatible with existing customer IDs which makes this
solution less appetizing.
What are the advantages with the current artifact over opaque bearer
objects as described by me?  Well, I know that my scheme does not
support pull but in what way is pull better than push? Push gives IMO
much better control for the AA that will find out errors before the user,
who in pull will have to call the AA to say an URL is wrong or a server
is dead.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Moses
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 20:21
Subject: RE: First contact

Anders - I think the bit that is missing for you is how the SAML artifact identifies the location of the corresponding assertion.  One solution is proposed in the SAML Bindings draft.  However, this solution is not positioned as the only possible solution.  Furthermore, even this solution has not been formally accepted by the group - that discussion is yet to come.  The existing solution is to agree identifiers for parties on a bilateral basis.  This identifier is encoded in 32 bits of the artifact and each party is configured to translate the identifier into (for example) a URL.

Best regards.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:12 PM
To: Tim Moses; OASIS SAML
Subject: Re: First contact


> In my mind, a Push version appears to have limited utility (that's a British phrase,
>which, when translated into American, comes out something like: "A Push version is brain-dead").

Interesting, if you studied the document I sent you I indirectly came to the same
conclusion of the Push version.  I.e. the Pull URL seems to be completely in the air.

Do *you* know where to get these?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC