DaveO votes issue group 12

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

ISSUE:[UC-12-01:Confidentiality]

c) C&I protection is unsupported.

I don't know how to deal with "optional" things in spec, nor encourage. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUE: [UC-12-02:ConfidentialMessages]


c) C&I protection shall be specified both within the SAML message format and
within protocol bindings. Deployments can choose the appropriate solution.
For example, SAML messages within S/MIME documents do not need message-level
C&I protection, while SAML messages passed as HTTP cookies do.

I do want to make sure that for each protocol it is specified, ie if using
HTTP, then HTTPS is the mechanism.  If using MIME, then S/MIME.  If using
cookie then xyz.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUE:[UC-12-03:EncryptionNow]

Abstain.  

I don't know enough about the various options.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUE:[UC-12-04:EncryptionLater]

a) SAML shall continue to use the C&I method specified in
ISSUE:[UC-12-03:EncryptionNow].

There is no mandate we can place on the WG, we can't bind our WG to anything
in the future


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.