RE: [security-services] Proposed DoNotCache Condition

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

As we discovered during the interop dry runs, short validity periods can
cause real problems due to time synch issues.  In an environment with lax
time synch, you have to keep a wider window on the NotBefore and
NotOnOrAfter values.  Some sort of doNotCache option seems to be a
reasonable way to force the receiver to not hang onto the assertion.

Rob Philpott 
RSA Security Inc. 
The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:06 PM
To: 'Hal Lockhart'
Cc: 'SAML'
Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed DoNotCache Condition

>But the SSO Assertion can contain attribute statements. Since
Authorization
>decisions may be based on those attributes, it would be nice to know
that
>they are expected to change soon. However, this is not the use case I
am
>really interested in. (see below)

Ok, but if you think about it, putting other statements in the SSO
assertion has some serious problems. The assertion has to be short
lived, so it doesn't seem very practical.

OTOH, one could embed an additional assertion with different validity in
the samlp:Response, and that seems to have the semantics one would want.
The SSO assertion is rendered invalid quickly, but the additional data
can last however long is proper.

-- Scott


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>