[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed addition to Section 3.3 of Conformance
Scott, yes I did mean the Name identifier content being equal.
Your statement about "both parties agree on its interpretation"
is what I think is missing in Rob's original email. For Saml
transient and persistent identifier formats this is defined.
However, for the others, the interpretation of the Name
Identifier content data is not clear. As you point out, there's
probably a better way to word my statement.
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:11 PM
To: 'Thomas Wisniewski'; 'Philpott, Robert'; 'prateek mishra';
Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed addition to Section 3.3 of
> Does it make sense to add a clarification statement around
> what consumption means (i.e., what it does not imply for
> conformance). For example, changing the last sentence in the
> second paragraph to:
> The remaining identifiers in these sections do not specify normative
> processing rules. Therefore, their generation and consumption will only
> be valid when both providers share common values for these identifiers.
> Additional mapping or federation of these identifier formats is
> implementation specific.
I think you have the word identifiers overloaded here, but the sentiment is
fine. When you say "share common values", you mean the NameIdentifier
content, not the format identifiers, right? The latter is a given,
Clearly, any semantically meaningful identifier is only useful (apart from
treating it opaquely as a handle) if both parties agree on its
> I would also like to confirm that support for the persistent
> name identifier and therefore the normative text around it will be
> required for conformance based on the wording changes below. I ask this
> because on the call, I asked if there were any objections to saying that
> at least this one would be mandatory if we narrowed the list. And there
> seemed to be objections -- so I would assume those objections would no
> longer be relevant.
I wasn't sure whether anybody objected or not, I just wasn't sure that if we
tried to narrow the list, that everyone agreed on that one. I didn't hear us
put it to a question.