RE: [security-services] Comment on sstc-saml-glossary-2.0 (also c loses AI #0114)

["Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>]

[Paul]>
>
>Prateek's definition for a federated identity, with its emphasis on an
>'identifier', would appear to exclude roles-based scenarios.
>
>To my mind, if a Principal's role attribute at one provider is 
>recognizable
>and understood at another, this is still a federated identity, albeit
>probably anonymous.
>
>Or, was the intent that 'a class of identifiers' in the 
>definition addressed
>this?
>
[\Paul]

I am also of the opionion that we haven't yet reached solid ground on this
issue. It is definitely very important that we include "role-based
scenarios" as first-class citizens of the federation ecosystem. It is not
clear to me that my proposed definition clearly includes such scenarios.

- prateek