[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Agenda for Conference Call on November 25
1. Accept minutes from November 11 Conference Call http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00044.html 2. Charter Vote Status http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/ballot.php?id=268& Following the rules in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#charter the TC has voted to update its charter. We will continue to move forward with the next steps as described in the OASIS rules. 3. Proposed F2F Schedule Recognizing that we have spent a certain amount of time on procedural matters, the chairs have proposed the following dates for the next two F2F meetings: (a) Week of Februrary 2 (F2F #3 - East Coast) (b) Week of March 29 (F2F#4 - West Coast) 4. Proposed schedule for scoping and solution proposals http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00106.html 5. Interoperability challenges How to respond to commentary? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00027.html Proposal (a): SAML 1.1 InterOp Event at RSA2004 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00031.html We need to identify an owner: Rob? (b): Identify vendor(s) or sites where SAML 1.1 test suite is available http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00091.html We need to identify an owner: ? 6. Eve has published revised work item list http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200311/msg00098.html which includes discussion of use-case scoping for several work items. We should begin voting on scope on each of the work items as soon as use-cases are available or adequately defined. W-1: decide whether to accept advanced use case in addition to base W-2: reconcile base and extension use cases W-2a: decide whether to accept use case W-3: reconcile Scott and Prateek use cases W-5 and W-5a: select among use cases W-7: decide whether to accept use case W-8: decide whether to accept use case W-15: decide whether to accept use case W-17: decide whether to accept use case W-19: decide whether to accept use case W-21: decide whether to accept both base and advanced use cases W-25: decide whether to accept both base and bridge server use cases W-28a: reconcile Scott and Rebekah use cases W-28d: decide whether to accept use case 7. Open Action Items #0095: Use Case for W-9: XML Encryption Owner: Hal Lockhart Status: Open Assigned: 24 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 06:23 GMT Hal will write the use-case for general XML encryption of SAML assertions. This is distinct from Scott Cantor's work on encrypting name identifiers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0094: Use-Case for W-6: Proxied SSO Owner: Scott Cantor Status: Open Assigned: 24 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0093: Discovery Protocol Solution Proposal Owner: Scott Cantor Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 04:36 GMT AI: Scott Cantor: AI is to take relevant spec from Liberty and produce draft proposal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0092: Assertion-level Subject Owner: Conor Cahill Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 04:31 GMT AI: Scott Cantor: Connor submitted the Assertion level subject, so he will be owner if connor doesn't join ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0091: Solution proposal for null attribute issue Owner: Rob Philpott Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 04:31 GMT AI: Rob Philpott: RSA guy made null attribute request, therefore he'll own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0090: SAML elements with mixed version sub-elements Owner: Eve Maler Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 04:29 GMT Can a SAML 2.0 response include SAML 1.1 assertion?s The general question is whether SAML containers of version 2.0 can hold elements belonging to previous versions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0089: Describe Identity Provider, Service Provider and other roles Owner: Eve Maler Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 04:25 GMT This is an action generated during the discussion on the issue list at the F2F. The point here is that we are moving away from source site terminology and going towards a new set of terms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0088: Understanding ID-FF AuthNContext Elements Owner: Scott Cantor Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:56 GMT Scott will find someone who understands ID-FF AuthNContext work to explicate difference between statementRef and class. Ref is reallife URI that implies context. Class notion is some sort of higher order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0087: UCs for Making Assertions about Issuers of Assertions Owner: Irving Reid Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:51 GMT ACTION: Scott, Bob, and Irving will develop UCs for Making Assertions about Issuers of Assertions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0086: Non-HTTP use-cases related to the LECP profile Owner: Bob Morgan Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:27 GMT ACTION: Bob Morgan - more use cases. More generic use cases, may be not involving HTTP. May involve web dav. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0085: Define SAML (it could be derived from LA 1.1) Owner: Prateek Mishra Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:24 GMT We want to add flows from SP to the IdP in SAML 2.0. To do so we need a design for an AuthNRequest element. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0084: Reconcile terminology in glossary and current use-case document Owner: John Kemp Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:19 GMT Terminology used in sstc-saml-2.0-issues-draft-01.pdf is not consistent with terminology found in the current SAML glossary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- #0083: Gap Analysis between ID-FF proposals and John Kemp Use Cases Owner: John Kemp Status: Open Assigned: 23 Nov 2003 Due: --- Comments: Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24 03:16 GMT ACTION from October 24 F2F: SSTC to direct John Kemp to do a gap analysis based on Liberty's spec. How much work is needed to support richer notion of session? Prateek Mishra Netegrity p: 781-530-6564 c: 617-875-4970
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]