[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] SAML extensions example
Since the current Section 6 reference to XTAML is talking about it as an example of an application that extends SAML *assertions*, I think the Liberty substitution would be okay. Sure, parts of Liberty can be confusing from a SAML extension perspective, but Liberty's extension of saml:AssertionType seems like a reasonable replacement for section 6. 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: Thursday, April 24, 2003 7:09 PM > To: 'Eve L. Maler'; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [security-services] SAML extensions example > > > Hmm, yeah. I was hoping that they would just be illustrative of the > > mechanics of how you extend SAML types to do your own thing, and looking > > at XTAML at this point would probably just be confusing. Do you think > > Liberty would serve all right in this capacity? > > I think *parts* of Liberty do, but some parts end up confusing a person if > they don't have time to look deeper. > > Extending Request and Response can throw one for a loop, for example, > whereas extending Subject or AuthenticationStatement is more > in keeping with the point you're trying to make. > > 1.2 goes a little farther along those lines, with several new Statements, > for example. > > -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]