Re: [saml-dev] SAML InterOp one pager and Slide Set

Hal Lockhart wrote:
 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Don Bowen [mailto:]

> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:33 PM

> To: Mishra, Prateek

> Cc: 'dee schur'; 

> Subject: Re: [saml-dev] SAML InterOp one pager and
Slide Set

>

>

> Prateek,

> Questions and comments.

> Do we want to mention WS-Security in this presentation?
It

> would seem to me to beg the question "What is WS-Security",

> which I don't think we are answering (and shouldn't).
We

> should have an answer for anyone that asks, but it
just

> seemed out of place to me.

I would like to see my "Points to Make..." incorporated.
That we we can say the Demo is not about Web Services, but SAML supports
many environments, including Web Services.

 

> On slide 3 where we say what SAML is it seems less tangent

> than the "SAML is NOT" slide bullets.

I don't understand. Did you mean some other word than
"tangent"?
Yes :-) Should have been "tangible".

 
 

> Rather than WS-Security on slide 4 should we mention
some of

> the other profiles? That seems more appropriate to
me.

> I wonder if the order might be better if it was:

> - SAML is...

> - SAML is NOT...

> - SAML Profiles

> On slide 6 it says that several products are available
today,

> but won't this confuse people when the standard is
not yet

> "complete"? Maybe just me :-)

It is now a committee specification. This is the point
of implementation. Real product have been announced and are available for
purchase (including ours) The demo shows that they really can interoperate,
this is not a paper spec. IMO that is what customers want.

 
Understood. Not sure I can explain what I meant and it now seems moot to
me.
 

> On slide 7 is it appropriate to say that each vendor

> implements web browser profile?

Why not?
Withdrawn.
 

> Slide 10, the "Flows" slide seems like it would be better

> after "SAML Interop Details" and before "Types of Interop

> Sites". What about adding a box showing the user in
the flow?

> Also, will it be clear to people that the username
and

> password are inputs provided during the "Authenticate
(out of

> band)" step?

> We are using Interop, Demonstration and Demo. Maybe
we should

> use just one of those terms?

I vote for Interop Demo or Interop Demonstration
I like Interop Demo.
 

> "Signon" on slide 11 should be two words. I might even
change

> that first bullet to "Sign on to any portal".

> On slide 13 it seems like the wording on the second

> sub-bullet need to be fixed. Possibly "...can be used
at

> portal or content sites"

> My understanding was that this preso would run continuously

> on a table somewhere, though I don't remember asking
anyone

> to provide a machine. We discussed it being 10 minutes
long,

> but it shouldn't be any longer in my opinion. Who is
going to

> put this preso into that form? I would be happy to
do it.

> There are a few more tiny edits I'd do like making
the boxes

> on slide 10 the same size and cosmetic stuff like that.

We can set this up during the weekend. Some people (like
me) won't have much to do.

Hal

Attachment:
don.bowen.vcf

Description: Card for Don Bowen