[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Dave O vote Use Case #11
Ballot: ISSUE:[UC-11-01:AuthzUseCase] 2. Remove this use case. My rationale is that I think our spec has 2 halves and I'd rather finish them linearly, quickly and effectively. My plan is to do SSO first, then Authorization for SAML 1.1. These 2 features seem very orthogonal to me. This means that some vendor may implement AuthZ, and another implement Authn. So who is SAML compliant? I'd like to focus on one thing at a time without this "two-headed" spec we have. Having said that, I'm pretty sure that this measure will pass given the votes I've seen so far. Dave Orchard XML Architect Jamcracker Inc., 19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 p: 408.864.5118 m: 604.908.8425 f: 408.725.4310 www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC