Minutes for 19-april SSTC Focus Call

Dial in info: +1 865 673 6950 #351-8396

Attendance:

Rob P. (RSA)
Ari K. (Oracle)
Tom W. (Entrust)
Rick R. (BAH)
Alberto S. (Ping)
Scott C (Internet2)
Brian C (Ping)
RL Bob M. (Internet2)
Nick R. (Individual)

Review new errata items

· Scott: Where we ended up is reasonable. The text does match the schema. We need some clarification text.

· Brian C: volunteered to write the text and post it to the list.

Errata for the conformance spec

· Rob: Minor comment re: missing parenthetical in the table.

Rick’s updated profile:

Groups - sstc-saml-x509-authn-based-attribute-protocol-profile-2.0-draft-04.pdf uploaded

· Rick: Tom W posted comments to the list – they’ve been included in the draft.

· Rick: Tom also suggested that we could slim down the doc by saying the encrypted mode is everything in the basic mode plus the following. Rick did not include this change, leaving each section to stand on its own.

· Scott: re: subject confirmation. Rick has pulled out the text re: subject conf. So Scott’s AI to get back to Rick is moot.

· Tom: one assertion with one attribute statement?

· Rick: earlier language said one or more, but comments were that folks don’t do that in practice.

· Tom: Conditions that aren’t recognized?

· Scott: SP has to understand all conditions. That’s defined by core.

· Tom: Order of signing and encryption?

· Scott: The core spec already addresses that. Also, the profile would be cleaner if it just said that messages must be signed and not go into the details of the mechanics. Just refer back to the core for the mechanics.

· Tom: will send additional editorial comments.

· Rick: A new draft will be forthcoming.

FYI: The metadata extension CD ballot passed

Vote to approve Metadata Extension spec as a Committee Draft

· Scott: Rick’s attribute profile should normatively reference the new metadata extension. Put it in a section on the use of metadata.

Any other items?

security-services message