[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: ISSUE:[UC-2-05: MarketPlace]
I agree very much with Zahid's questioning on the voting results. Some of the session issues had an even higher percentage of votes, at 8-3 but 73% didn't meet the 75%. It seems strange that we just drop the issue if it makes meager 73% of the votes. I'm curious as to the NO votes whether they were strongly against or whether they could live with a favorable result. Typically in consensus driven organizations, the question is asked as to who strongly objects to a majority decision before proceeding. I still think we can get to consensus (100%) on these issues, and I'd favour discussions on issues that had a 50-74.9% vote for them. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Ahmed, Zahid [mailto:zahid.ahmed@commerceone.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:22 AM > To: Mishra, Prateek; UseCaseList > Subject: RE: ISSUE:[UC-2-05: MarketPlace] > > > Prateek, Thanks for getting this discussion out. > > Can we clarify the status of issues that have not currently > been voted? Issue 5-04 had a voting result of 7-4, I believe. > E.g., are we assuming that the decision has been made that such issues > (i.e, issues that did not pass the ballot) will not be supported by > SAML 1.0? Or is there room for further discussion at the F2F? > > Our company already has the use case pertaining to Issue 2-05 > implemented in products for a considerable amount of time now, > and currently we are migrating our implementation to an early > SAML implementation using SAML components and yet-to-be finalized > SAML security considerations. > > Sooner or later, I believe standards should have a role in > Issue# 2-05 arena, for the sake of (security) interoperability > between trading parties. > > Zahid Ahmed Commerce One, Inc. > Commerce Security Architect > email: zahid.ahmed@commerceone.com > v: (408)-517-3903 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mishra, Prateek [mailto:pmishra@netegrity.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:24 AM > > To: UseCaseList > > Subject: ISSUE:[UC-2-05: MarketPlace] > > > > > > > > There are a few comments I would like to make > > about this use-case scenario. > > > > First, it seems to > > me to be a relatively simple and practical > > instantiation of Use Case 3 (Back Office Transaction). > > > > In its essentials: party A packages or binds > > some SAML assertions with business payload and sends it to > > party B. The > > payload > > may be drawn from a variety of formats (SOAP, ebXML, ..). The > > protocol used to "send" the data may be HTTP, SMTP,... > > > > I find the scenarios for use-case 3, somewhat high-level and > > abstract. For example, they > > make no reference to specific data-formats and protocols > > used for interaction between a buyer and a seller. It would be > > useful to add a use-case scenario that makes it more > > concrete. My opinion is that ISSUE:[UC-2-05: MarketPlace] > > meets this need without dragging in a whole lot of "new" issues. > > > > > > Comments are invited... > > > > - prateek > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: > > security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: > security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC