[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Irving's votes for 6, 7, 8, 9
BALLOT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All issue resolutions are mutually exclusive, so please choose one option for each issue. [UC-6-01:XMLProtocol] 2. Leave current binding to SOAP. [UC-7-01:Enveloping] Abstain. [UC-7-02:Enveloped] Abstain. IR: I feel that enveloping/enveloped formats will arise from particular bindings and applications. We should let the requirement arise from a specific use instead of arbitrarily asserting it. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this to vote against. [UC-8-01:Intermediaries] 1. Add proposed requirement [CR-8-01:Intermediaries]. IR: This question really has two major parts: passing SAML through intermediaries, and requiring that validity can be checked without direct contact between AP and RP. The first is a clear yes, the second I'm not so sure about. [UC-8-02:IntermediaryAdd] 1. Add the given use-case scenario to the document. IR: The use case could be greatly simplified. We don't need a full-blown B2B design just to illustrate IntermediaryAdd. [UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete] 1. Add the given use-case scenario to the document. [UC-8-04:IntermediaryEdit] 2. Don't add this use-case scenario. [UC-8-05:AtomicAssertion] 1. Add the non-goal [CR-8-05:AtomicAssertion] to the document, and change use case scenarios to specify that intermediaries must treat assertions as atomic. [UC-9-01:RuntimePrivacy] 1. Add the proposed non-goal [CR-9-01:RuntimePrivacy]. [UC-9-02:PrivacyStatement] 4. Add none of these as requirements. IR: I would support adding [CR-9-02-4-DisclosureMishra] as a 'best practice' but not as a requirement.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC