OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[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:  
>- 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


>- 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]