Right on.
-----Original Message-----
From: Conor P. Cahill [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:01 PM
To: Beach, Michael C
Cc: Reid, Irving; Kapil Sachdeva; Scott Cantor;
Subject: RE: [saml-dev] Which version to use?
Beach, Michael C wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:53 PM:
> Just to emphasize Irving's point. The Liberty Alliance states no
more > work will be done on ID-FF because it has been turned over to
OASIS. I > don't mean this in a derogatory way, but ID-FF is
effectively a "dead > end". Yes it works, yes it was quality work, yes
it benefited the > industry, but I personally don't see why a new
project would consider > using ID-FF over SAMLv2 (unless you are
deploying NOW and need concrete > stable standards NOW). The future
along this path is SAMLv2.
What you say about the future is absolutely true.
However, for those intending to interact with other existing services at
this time (for example, people who would want to work with Orange's
identity federation implementation), the will need to implement ID-FF.
If I was starting with a clean sheet, I would agree with you that SAML
2.0 is the way to go. If I'm concerned with working with existing
implementations at least in the relatively near future, I would do ID-FF
(and SAML 2.0 now, or in the near future).
The key is timeframe and interoperability that you need to support.
Conor
