Since the current Section 6 reference to XTAML is talking about it as an
example of an application that extends SAML *assertions*, I think the
Liberty substitution would be okay. Sure, parts of Liberty can be confusing
from a SAML extension perspective, but Liberty's extension of
saml:AssertionType seems like a reasonable replacement for section 6.
Rob Philpott
RSA Security Inc.
The Most Trusted Name in e-Security
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
mailto:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: 'Eve L. Maler';
> Subject: RE: [security-services] SAML extensions example
>
> > Hmm, yeah. I was hoping that they would just be illustrative of the
> > mechanics of how you extend SAML types to do your own thing, and looking
> > at XTAML at this point would probably just be confusing. Do you think
> > Liberty would serve all right in this capacity?
>
> I think *parts* of Liberty do, but some parts end up confusing a person if
> they don't have time to look deeper.
>
> Extending Request and Response can throw one for a loop, for example,
> whereas extending Subject or AuthenticationStatement is more
> in keeping with the point you're trying to make.
>
> 1.2 goes a little farther along those lines, with several new Statements,
> for example.
>
> -- Scott
