[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Proposed Minutes SSTC Telecon (Tue 10/16/2012)
>(i) Support of SAML for metadata in other formats > >- Background: during the recent Webinar on SAML2.1 Hal received a >question from the audience regarding the possible use of metadata >expressed in other formats, and whether SAML could support it. See email >on the list: >https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201210/msg00005.ht >ml > >- Scott expressed doubts if SAML could be used with other protocols. I don't know what that statement refers to, but I don't think that's what I said. I know for a fact SAML metadata works fine with other protocols, so I wasn't saying that. >- Chad asks if there was anything wrong with the current format of our >metadata. There is a project called Global Federated Identity and >Privilege Management (GFIPM) that uses SAML. The context for that is that they don't use SAML metadata and we want to know why that is. >- John Bradley: the OIDC (OpenID-Connect) and folks such as Roland >Herzberg(?) Hedberg. >- JohnB states that OIDC has a metadata format for individual IdPs, but >for a Centralized IdP approach there are a couple of proposals making its >way in the OIDC community. So a decision has not yet been made there. >JohnB states that it's the "SAML people" in OIDC that desire the >centralized approach. Scott says that it sounds like a business problem >and implementation issue. I was talking about the lack of progress on various non-higher-ed efforts to launch trust federations with SAML being a business problem, and one that will not go away because they take out angle brackets. >(iii) Webinar: > >- Hal: Webinar went well. Over 70+ people connected online. The only >impacting issue seems to be the metadata format question. Would have been >good if we had a better answer for that question. Scott says he tried to >answer but the audio was poor. Hal suggest for next time we should use a >back-channel (eg. chat room). The audio was fine, the format of the webinar was the problem, with no chat capability to answer questions. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]