Re: [saml-dev] Which version to use?

Could you please elaborate what makes Liberty not an option if both 
specifications are the same except for schema namespaces ?

Now speaking of schema namespaces' differences & submission of Liberty work 
to SAML 2.0 group, I am very much confused. Sometime back I had asked a 
question to this group titled
"Why Liberty if SAML .....?" 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/saml-dev/200409/msg00000.html
I got a good answer as to what Liberty has added to SAML 1.1.

The thing is that I am not able to understand the existence of two parallel 
standards and that too when two standard organizations have 90% common 
companies formulating the specifications.
For me (unless I am very wrong) I see the vendors implementing two parallel 
specs i.e. Liberty-ID-FF-1.2 & SAML 2.0. And for sure will arise an issue of 
interoperabilty between 2 of them in
near future.

Please educate me.

Regards & Thanks
Kapil Sachdeva
http://www.dotnetcard.com/blogs/ksachdeva
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Noel Colin" <>
To: "'Scott Cantor'" <>; "'Alistair Young'" 
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] Which version to use?


> Well, thank you for all your comments.
>
> However, due to the participation of certain partners to the project,
> Liberty is not really an option, and we would rather rely on SAML only, 
> even
> if this means 'reinventing' the wheel in some cases.
>
> So I guess we should use SAML 2.0, in our particular case, paying 
> attention
> to any modification that could be brought to the specs until they get
> officially released.
>
> Jean-Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:]
> Sent: lundi 18 octobre 2004 19:56
> To: 'Alistair Young'
> Cc: 
> Subject: RE: [saml-dev] Which version to use?
>
>> does anyone know if there will be an open source implementation of
>> SAML2 and when?
>
> There will be an OpenSAML 2.0 by sometime next year. Possibly something 
> will
> be available sooner, there are a handful of discussions ongoing.
>
> SourceID is a possibility, and if they'd fully open source it (it's not 
> free
> for commercial use) I could see basing some of our Shib stuff on it. I 
> doubt
> anybody but me is planning a C++ version, which I need, so there will be
> something produced explicitly by us regardless.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>