OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Minutes from focus group call, April 20, 2003


April 20, 2003



Bob Morgan

Scott Cantor

John Hughes

Prateek Mishra



Prateek outlines his view of attributes based on




Scott suggests we retain URI-based

attribute naming within core; also include language explaining how to determine

identity of <attributedesignators> for this case. Remaining attribute formats to be

described in SAML Attribute Profiles document. <samlp:Resource> element may not be

required in SAML 2.0 we should send out a message asking if people are using this


Discussion about "CORE-11 Validity Period of Identifiers"



Point to Bob's message:




No controversy about the main points here. Bob will describe changes to the

core document to pick up these changes.


Bob's framework also applies to  the case where an encrypted identifier is given

a life-time using a condition.


Scott proposes that identifiers with life-times be described in a separate profile.

General discussion about identifiers and life-time. Prateek will generate an analysis

of name identifiers and whether a life-time notion is needed more generally for federation



John raises question about adding "friendly name" to GUID attribute names. Need both friendly name

and GUID. Scott raises concern about use of "friendly name" <attributedesignator>; for example,

could one query by "friendly name"? Prateek comments that the attribute profile could define all of these

aspects of the profile.





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]