Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposal for assertion-level subjects
Argh! When I proposed assertion-level subjects, it was because I wanted to REDUCE complexity. All this talk of having both assertion and statement-level subjects, and confirmations, is making my head spin. I want ONE subject/subject confirmation in each assertion, at the top level. NO statement-level elements. I'm sick of optimizing the 5% case, at the expense of hundreds of lines of hard-to-test, hard-to-maintain code in *each* implementation. If someone wants to support a choice between subject confirmation methods, we can define an "or" element structure in the assertion-level SC. If someone wants to have two statements with different SCs, they can put them in separate assertions. Any Other Path Leads To Madness. - irving (at least for me) - > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:Eve.Maler@Sun.COM] > Sent: February 26, 2004 06:34 > To: Scott Cantor > Cc: 'Greg Whitehead'; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [security-services] Proposal for assertion-level subjects > > > Ah, right. I hadn't included subject confirmation info in the higher > level in my proposal, but it could be added optionally to the > assertion > level, with the semantic that if it's present, any absence of > it at the > lower level means to pick it up as a default. > > Eve > > Scott Cantor wrote: > >>One of the benefits that I was looking forward to with > assertion-level > >>subjects was only having to confirm the subject *once* in > the common > >>case, and I'm not sure how that is impacted by this proposal. > >> > >>In the presumably common case that there is one > SubjectConfirmation > >>method that a number of statements share, does this > proposal allow an > >>assertion-level expression of that method? > > > > > > I think that has to be part of the solution, or we lose > much of the benefit. > > > > In fact, it seems clear to me that Subject as currently > defined is really > > one of two things: > > > > An identifier + optional subject confirmation > > or > > subject confirmation > > > > That suggests that what we're really doing is giving > assertions a single > > subject identifier (via a choice of BaseIdentifier, NameIdentifier, > > EncryptedIdentifier) and then separating out subject > confirmation from that. > > So Subject per se is gone. > > > > My assumption is that SubjectConfirmation itself becomes a > sequence of > > elements, each one containing an optional identifier, a method, and > > method-dependent data. > > > > The sequence would appear both in the assertion (following > the subject > > identifier) and in each statement. > -- > Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 > Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 > Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services /members/leave_workgroup.php.