[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group select either t he HTTP or SOAP protocol bindings?
You have a misunderstanding here, which others may share; I am NOT referring to web browser profiles (SAML artifact, Form POST). I am instead referring to mapping SAML request-response protocols over standard transports/frameworks. - prateek >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com] >>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:37 PM >>To: Mishra, Prateek; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: Re: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group >>select either >>the H TTP or SOAP protocol bindings? >> >> >>Does this apply to the POST form as well? >>I hope not as I don't see any use of SOAP there. >> >>rgds >>Anders >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com> >>To: <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>; >><security-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> >>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 18:22 >>Subject: [Action - Prateek]: Should the Bindings Group select >>either the H TTP or SOAP protocol bindings? >> >> >>Colleagues, >> >>One part of the discussions at f2f#4 concerned the following: >> >>(1) Do we require BOTH a HTTP binding and a SAML binding in SAML 1.0? >>RESPOND: Yes/No >> >>(2a) If yes, which binding is going to be Mandatory-to-Implement? >>RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1 >> >>(2b) If no, which binding is of interest to you? >>RESPOND: HTTP/SOAP 1.1/another proposal >> >>___________________ >>My votes: >> >>(1) No >>(2b) SOAP 1.1 with some sanity restrictions concerning the use of >>intermediates >>(see related message). >>SOAP/HTTP would be called out in full detail and would be >>mandatory-to-implement. >> >>------------------------------ >>I think there is a lot of merit in restricting SAML 1.0 to a >>single binding. >>We are all working with a common "internet architecture" and >>i dont see >>the type of divergence out there that would require two >>distinct bindings >>proposals. >>The (fundamentals parts of) SOAP messaging architecture seem to be >>well-accepted >>and widely implemented. >> >>Also, a single binding, designed and debugged with care is >>more valuable >>that two bindings which havent been shaken out fully. >>Basically, doing the >>right job for two bindings is going to take more time and I would like >>some compelling reasons that we really need the two. >> >>Notice also, that folks who need additional >>bindings can go ahead and develop and register them (where? We need to >>work on closing this item). >> >>- prateek >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC