[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: WSFED TC Minutes, Nov 13 2007 - VER2
|
Added roll. WSFED TC Minutes, Nov 13 2007 Summary of new Action Items: Hal to open new issue on references to unsubmitted
specs (e.g. Mex, RT) 1. Call to order/roll call Present: Status Change Lost voting Status Yakov Sverdlov, CA Attendance Hal Lockhart;BEA Systems, Inc. Denis Pilipchuk;BEA Systems, Inc. Michael McIntosh;IBM Anthony Nadalin;IBM Greg Carpenter;Microsoft Corporation Marc Goodner;Microsoft Corporation Chris Kaler;Microsoft Corporation Arun Nanda;Microsoft Corporation Don Schmidt;Microsoft Corporation Norman Brickman;Mitre Corporation* Abbie Barbir;Nortel Lloyd Burch;Novell* Steve Carter;Novell* Doug Earl;Novell* Anil Saldhana;Red Hat Tony Gullotta;SOA Software Inc. Don Adams;TIBCO Software Inc. Siddharth Bajaj;VeriSign 2. Reading/Approving minutes of last meeting (Oct
30) http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsfed/200711/msg00004.html
Held approval since VER 2 with roll was just posted 3. TC Logistics (10 minutes or less) No problem with Thanksgiving as no call scheduled
next week, regular bi-weekly schedule continues 4. Issues list http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsfed/issues/Issues.xml
a) Review of action items None. b) Issues in Review status None. c) New issues i014: Indicating functionally equivalent service
endpoints in Federation Metadata http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsfed/200711/msg00001.html
Don described issue Pointed out origin of idea from blogosphere
discussions to indicate functionally equivalent endpoints, e.g. services run in
different physical locations for scalability Different levels of assurance would be handled by
separating the endpoints into different fed metadata No implied priority, main difference is usually
location Intended to say these are functionally equivalent,
conversation needs to be completed with whom you start, there is no implied
state between endpoints How does consumer determine which of the endpoints
to choose? Policy? Client sees endpoint it wants, currently not much
provided beyond keys, claims etc., access to additional metadata is then
required Don thinks there is more work in this area No difference between which you pick All high assurance would be under one collection,
low assurance would be under another collection Service provider must not mix in the same collection Proposal adopted, status changed to pending d) Active issues i004 - Transitive closure spec dependencies Analysis, recommendations: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsfed/200710/msg00012.html Question on references to unsubmitted specs Noted that retaining references to unsubmitted specs
can cause problems in OASIS standard ballot or in submission to ITU-T, ISO etc. Wasn’t attempting to resolve those issues,
just checking the references were correct Are references to unsubmitted specs normative? Yes, in many cases it is a hard dependency AI Hal to open new issue on references to
unsubmitted specs (e.g. Mex, RT) Question on meaning of keep etc. in proposal, looked
at reference to 2616 as an example There is a more up to date reference, 2817, that may
obsolete 2616 but recommendation is to keep 2616 for consistency with other
specs such as BSP, SX etc. Proposal adopted, status changed to pending i005 - Complex claim data types In progress i013 - Encoded wresult In progress f) Pending issues i012 - Editorial changes to Section 2.7 Attributes,
Pseudonyms, and IP/STS Services and section 5 Attribute Service 5. AOB Interop update Scenarios for phase 1 interop testing covering
passive requestors posted http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsfed/200710/msg00016.html
Have not seen comments since posting, reflects
discussions with Lloyd and Tony to date Microsoft will participate, not sure when endpoints
will be available but should be soon Past interop has been done by maintaining a private
discussion off the main list so people don’t have to post endpoints and
results on a public list unless they want to. Marc volunteered to be on point to add people as
they ask to participate to discussion thread. Interested in participating send email to Marc mgoodner@microsoft.com to be 6. Adjournment |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]