RE: [security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded

["Metz Rebekah" <metz_rebekah@bah.com>]

Hello all - 

It's been awhile since I've had the opportunity to actively participate
in the TC - but it is quite exciting to see how much progress has been
made on the specs over the past two years.  

I've recently learned that Rick has, unfortunately, left BAH.  We've
just identified someone to take over his responsibilities as a liaison
between the TC and the particular client which generated the original
use cases for the X.509 profile.  As I have a bit of background with the
SAML specs, I'm trying to help him come up to speed on the profile and
the base specs as he learns more about the project requirements that
drove the specs to begin with.  

Although I don't yet have answers to the specific questions that have
been recently posed on the list, I wanted to confirm that the original
need still exists and will work with Chris (Rick's replacement) to get
answers pertinent to the new profile draft.

Rebekah

-----Original Message-----
From: Ari Kermaier [mailto:ari.kermaier@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Tom Scavo; Scott Cantor
Cc: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [security-services] Groups -
sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded

I'm making inquiries on this front via contacts within my company, and
I'll report as soon as I can.
::Ari

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Scavo [mailto:trscavo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:29 PM
> To: Scott Cantor
> Cc: Ari Kermaier; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [security-services] Groups -
> sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded
> 
> 
> On 8/15/06, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> > > But w.r.t. stability of drafts, my main concern is that AFAIK
> > > this profile was originally submitted to support a particular
> > > use case defined by certain US government agencies.
> >
> > Right, but I haven't heard from those constituencies 
> lately. Is the draft
> > still needed? Whose RFP needs were being addressed and do 
> they still have
> > them?
> >
> > > As interoperability with these already existing deployments is
> > > likely to be a major driver of adoption of this profile, we
> > > should take care not to break interop with the original
> > > profile if at all possible.
> >
> > As originally conceived, there could be no existing 
> deployments since it was
> > being written while SAML 2.0 was being written. Have there 
> been deployments
> > since? If so, it's worth asking how well that went.
> 
> These questions are paramount.  If backwards compatibility with
> previous drafts is a goal, many of my previous comments are irrelevant
> and many of Ari's concerns are non-issues.  We need to answer this
> question before spinning our wheels further.
> 
> Tom
>