Title: RE: Updated Issues List (draft-sstc-saml-issues-06.doc)
Hal -
The only written response to my contribution on this topic was from Dan Ash (and
that was supportive). I did speak with Phill about it, and (I think) he
felt he needed the group's explicit instruction to include it. I have
suggested text on the topic for the SubjectConfirmation section, but that text
was not included in Core 15. I am trying to figure out how best to get the
"group" to instruct Phill to include it in the next draft. Best
regards. Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Lockhart
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 23,
2001 2:02 PM
To: 'Tim Moses'; 'OASIS Security Services
group'
Subject: RE: Updated Issues List
(draft-sstc-saml-issues-06.doc)
Sorry, I just missed it. I will add
it.
After doing a little research I am confused. At
first I thought, we have a usecase for some kind of document exchange in a
store and forward environment that would mandate this. I can't find one in
draft-sstc-saml-reqs-01. The only thing I found is a requirement for an
ebXML binding, which I suspect will require this, although I am not that
familiar with ebXML. I also cannot find open of closed issues on this kind
of a use case. Can anyone help me out? Does anyone from the usecase group
remember if store and forward transactions are supposed to be in or
out?
Assume the answer is "in", is this issue
controversial? Personally I thought this was one of the intended uses of
SubjectConfirmation. (I am having trouble following the discussion thread,
because this was originaly one point among many in your comments.) Have
there been any arguments against it?
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22,
2001 4:21 PM
To: 'OASIS Security Services
group'
Subject: RE: Updated Issues List
(draft-sstc-saml-issues-06.doc)
Hal - I do have one issue that I would like to
raise. I could offer to "champion" it, if it is
appropriate.
There is a need for a subject confirmation method based
on a signature over a document. Carlisle has dubbed this
"unaccompanied data". Also, see Dan Ash's posting on the
topic ...
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200108/msg00029.html
Should this method be added to section 4 of Core
15?
All the best. Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Hal Lockhart [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:51 AM
To: '';
''
Subject: Updated Issues List
(draft-sstc-saml-issues-06.doc)
The issues list has been updated to reflect recent
discussions on the list.
Some arbitrary
decisions were made about what are issues and what are merely
editorial comments. Please let me know if I have missed
your issue.
The issue status report has been delayed but will be
issued soon.
Hal
