Re: [security-services] Proposed Minutes SSTC Telecon (Tue 10/16/2012)

[Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>]

Thanks Scott - and apologies for the bad notes. I'll send an updated proposed minutes. 

Cheers,

/thomas/
_______________________________________

On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:43 PM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:

>> (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
> 
>