Title: Message
Don,
This
chart concerns me. It looks rather one sided. From the call, I was under the
assumption that each vendor was going to provide a portal and content provider
and thus be both a producer (src) and consumer (dest) of assertions
for the browser artifact profile. However, most of the vendors are listed as
just producers (src).
Regarding authorization, I feel that since the number of participants are
small, we need to be both PDP and PEPs. We are prepared to do that. However, a
better solution would be if the portal or content providers could act as PEP's
as well and consume authz assertions even if they are not prepared to produce
them.
Ken Yagen
Director, Software Development
CrossLogix,
Inc
www.crosslogix.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Don
Bowen [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:47
AM
To: Hal Lockhart
Cc:
Subject: Re: [saml-dev] Promised
Participant Spreadsheet
Hal,
Good suggestion. Here is the new spreadsheet. Please let me know if something
needs changed. And if anyone knows how to fix the grid lines I could use help.
I've tried borders under formatting, but it didn't help.
I did this right away, but got more info from my people and also found out
that Cisco is definitely not going to participate.
Don;
Hal Lockhart wrote:
It might be worth adding a column to indicate
browser/artifact source (portal) vs. destination (application). There is an
analogous distinction between Producer (PDP) and Consumer (PEP) for the
AuthZDecAssn as well.
According to my notes, Crosslogix, Quadrisis, Sigaba and
Systinet plan to be Destination only. Baltimore, Entegrity, Netegrity, Oblix,
RSA, Sun and Tivoli plan to implement both Source and Destination. Cisco,
Novell and Verisign are uncertain or unknown.
With respect to AuthZDecAssn, I am under the impression that
Crosslogix and Sun intend to be both Producer and Consumer (is this correct?)
whereas at Entegrity, while we are integrating a Producer into our product,
our consumer will be in the nature of a test frame and we will probably not
publically demonstrate it.
The reason for capturing this detail at this early date, is
that it directly impacts the size to the test matrix and thus the amount of
time required for testing.
Hal
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Don Bowen [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:20 AM
> To:
>
Subject: [saml-dev] Promised Participant Spreadsheet
>
>
> I
have attached the promised SAML Interop 2002 Participant
> spreadsheet, summarizing what we discussed in our con call
> and much of what Dee put in the minutes.
>
> Please check the
information to make sure that it is
> correct. Let
me know if there is information to add and I
>
will repost. If there is additional information that we
> should add, just let me know.
>
> I have contacted Cisco, Systinet
and Verisign. No response
> yet from Cisco or
Verisign, but Anne Thomas Manes has
> already
replied and her information is reflected in the
>
spreadsheet.
>
> I
will be out of the country starting Monday and have
> limited access to email (I think). However, Ping will be
> monitoring the list for Sun while I'm gone. We should
have
> an answer very soon confirming use of our
facilities for the
> west coast dry run the week
of 6/17.
>
> Prateek
we still need you to repost the proposed scenario
> for the technical focus. We only have a short time left
> before our self-imposed deadline of 5/15 and probably
have
> much more to discuss. If you have questions
or proposals of
> your own, now is the time to
speak up :-)
>
> We
also need each vendor to send in the description of the
> application(s) they will be providing for the demo.
>
> Thanks everybody!
>
> Don;
>
