[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] Comments on SAML Token Profile
"Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com> wrote on 06/25/2004 10:34:27 AM: > These are two distinct comments that need to be considered independent of each > other. The first comment refers to an alleged inadequacy in an OASIS standard and > the second comment suggests that this inadequacy be resolved BEFORE profiles can be > built against the Standard. I believe this raises significant procedural issues > that the TC should provide guidance on, if necessary, via a vote. > > The WSS Core (?Web Services Security: SOAP Message V1.0?) is an OASIS standard > that has been voted on and accepted by this TC and by OASIS. There are many > profiles that will build on this standard. It would be an astonishing situation if > profiles were blocked because of alleged issues with the standard. Essentially it > would mean that any profile that is built against the standard can be challenged at > any point based on allegations of inadequacy with the standard. It also brings into > question of the use of the word ?Standard? for WSS Core. I don't want to block the SAML Profile, I want it to move forward with one minor change, binging it in line with other token profiles. > I would urge the Chairs to consider these comments in two parts: > > (1) Proposed errata for ?Web Services Security: SOAP Message V1.0?. Once the TC > has decided to accept such an errata (Is there a formal errata document and > process?) it can be added to the errata list and incorporated within a future ?Web > Services Security: SOAP Message V1.1?. > (2) Comments on the SAML Token Profile as based on the interoperability tests, > current draft and the following OASIS standards --- SAML 1.1 and ?Web Services > Security: SOAP Message V1.0?. Comments that fall outside these boundaries should be > considered out-of-scope, My comment is based on the fact that, during the interop, in order for us (IBM) to implement dereferencing of local direct references, we had to modify code in what was the token independent portion of our implementation. We do not want to start a trend that requires us to update this common code every time we want to support a new token type. > > Thanks, > > Prateek Mishra > > > > > From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:39 PM > To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [wss] Comments on SAML Token Profile > > We ran into some inconsistencies while participating in the recent SAML interop. > The WSS core specification describes a "Direct Reference" mechanism to be used with > STRs. A Reference element with a URI attribute is used. When the referenced token > is located within the Security header, the URI contains a shorthand XPointer > reference to the token. In order for this to work, the token element must contain > an attribute of type ID. WSS defines the wsu:Id attribute with type ID for naming > the reference. Direct references within the message should not require token > specific methods so we suggest the following actions be taken: > > 1) Errata to the WSS core to make it clear the tokens must have an attribute named wsu:Id. > 2) Change to the SAML Token Profile to use an wsu:Id attribute or use a wsse:KeyIdentifier > > Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]