[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes from focus group call, April 20, 2003
------------- Bob Morgan Scott Cantor John Hughes Prateek Mishra Prateek outlines his view of attributes based on http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200404/msg00085.html 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: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200404/msg00048.html 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 identifiers. 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]