← Prev in month ← Prev in thread

minutes...

From
Philpott, Robert <>
Date
2004-02-17T18:15:05+00:00
ID
F504A8CEE925D411AF4A00508B8BE90A06F38667@EXNA07
Thread
minutes...
Can you send to the list with the
attendance attached?

 

Thanks!

 

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: Action
items

Hal will generate a posting
on possible need to liaison.

 

Maryann will consult with
Michael and Tony regarding work item W5b and will get back with the group by
next call.

 

All: Need to comment on
Scott's message on 10-Feb (msg #00102)

 

John H and Tim will spend
early next week working on the solution proposal for W-25.

 

Eve: Action to implement
28-b in core.

 

ALL: Please review the
current action items and update them.  Prateek will follow up.

 

 

Minutes for SSTC Conference
Call, February 17

--------------------------------------------

 

Roll call.

 

Quorum achieved.

 

 

 

1. Accept minutes from the
February (2-5) F2F meeting at Burlington,
 MA

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200402/msg00123.html

Eve Maler moves to accept
minutes of F2F meeting. K. Rajsodi seconds the motion. No objections. Accepted
by unanimous consent.

 

2. Interop report.

Rob reported that interop is
going well. Needs a speaker from TC to participate in the press conference. Rob
has volunteers to be the TC representative. TC approves Rob to be the TC
representative to the press event.

 

3. Time-lines and next F2F
planning

- Next F2F Mar 30 - April 1

(Mike McIntosh to confirm
hotel details etc.)

Due to flight schedules it
is proposed to start the third day at 8:30
and end at 11:30 AM.

 

Prateek: proposes March 16
as absolute cutoff date of text for proposed specification text (no
"new" text or documents after that date)

 

Eve: we can refine the
proposed text during the focus call on the 23rd.

 

4. Focus call for the 24th

Due to RSA conference there
will be some people who cannot make the call. Rob and Prateek may be able to
call-in depending on the state of the Interop. Eve can call in Bob Morgan can
call in Scott will likely be able to call in

 

5.Work Item Review

 

Work through latest version
of sstc-saml-scope document available from the OASIS document repository. The
following work items do not have solution proposals at this time and are at
risk:

 

W-5b: SOAP Client Profile
(Mike McIntosh, Tony Nadalin)

W-9: XML Encryption (Hal
Lockhart)

W-15: Delegation and
Intermediaries (bob Morgan, Scott Cantor, Ron Monzillo)

W-25: Kerberos Support (John
Hughes, Tim Alsop)

W-21a: Document describing
instances of "baselines attribute namespaces" (John Hughes, Prateek
Mishra)

 

Eve walked through the
document. In many cases the proposals' status is that "it passed"
(based on F2F).

 

Prateek: does this mean that
the editors will pick up material from ID-FF 1.2 and include it in the
material.

Eve: Session-related editing
has begun. Federation has also begun. Feredrick has split up bindings and
profiles.

 

Eve: Notice to editors: all
accepted proposed solution should be in draft by the next call.

Scott: is working through
identity federation and has suggested changes to core. With this, Work Item W2
is "done".

 

Prateek has a number of
action items with respect to SSO with attribute exchange; he will work through
it.

 

Eve: W3 - Action on Jahan
to update document.

Scott: has published schema
proposal.

Jahan: Will publish a draft
as soon as TC comments on Scott's schema (probably by 3/2).

 

W5: The cycle over the next
week is John, Scott and then Eve.

W5a: Fredrick has split
Binding and Profiles. There is some commonality between the two. Eve suggest
that may be the commonality should move to core.

Eve: W5a is in a fairly good
shape and is pending comment from TC.

 

W5b: SOAP client profile.

Scott: This is a good
starting point but does not believe we can complete in time for 2.0.

Maryann: neither Michael nor
Tony is on the call. Can I answer any questions?

Prateek: We do not know the
status of the item. We have announced a cut off date. We do not have proposed
text. Scott has put some proposals but we do not have a final text.

Maryann: Trying to
understand what we need here.

Scott: his review resulted
in identifying issues and what needs to be addressed in order to have a
proposed text.

Prateek: needs to make work
item owner that there is no solution proposal.

Maryann: what is the process
for getting the feedback to the owners so they can respond. Scott: we are at a
point that we need an absolute schema proposal.

Ron: it seems that some of
the Subject discussion is about the Assertion and W5b is about interacting with
an authority. Therefore, there seems to be a separation between the two.

Prateek: We need a proposal
like: "modify the AuthN req/response protocol in such and such way and
modify the Subject in some ways to satisfy the use case".

Maryann: It seems we have a
dependency on Scott's work.

Scott: we will be done by
end of this week

Prateek: there is really no
dependency. There is a need for a solution proposal.

Scott: has posted a AuthN
request message schema and it's already on the list. The people
responsible for this work should take this AuthN request proposal and see if it
fits their needs or make alternative solution proposals.

 

Hal: Need to liaisons with
the XDI TC, which is doing work in the space of Authority Domain.

 

Eve: what is XDI

 

Hal: XRI Data Interchange.
They are at the bottom of the OASIS web page.

 

Action Item: Hal will
generate a posting on possible need to liaison.

 

Action Item: Maryann will
consult with Michael and Tony an will get back with the group by next call.

 

Discovery proposal: have
accepted solution proposal. Will have text by march 16 deadline.

 

W8: Authentication Context.
Solution proposal has been accepted.

Eve: needs to be turned into
a spec.

John H.: should be done by
the end of this week.

 

W9: Hal will add proposed
text this week.

 

W14: SAML server trust. Need
to re-format.

Jeff: will do it by next
week.

 

W15: delegation and
intermediaries.

Eve: needs technical
discussion. Ron has made a proposal and revised the proposal.

Eve: should discuss the
proposal and vote if we can.

Ron: The document as it is
written is a core document associates the assertion with the key in a way that resyricts
the use of confirmation. This does not seem appropriate to him.

Scott: need lots of text and
proposed changes AuthN request. Does not see if it can be done by 2.0. Need to
address what "holder of key" means.

Ron: if we agree to accept
Scott's req/resp then that will take us a long way towards completing
this item.

 

Prateek: Next step: comment
on what Ron and Scott have put out and start summarizing the solution.

 

Ron: finds a little hard to
understand some of the terms (like issuer).

Action for all: Need to
comment on Scott's message on 10-Feb (msg #00102)

 

W-19: Scott will provide
text and Jeff will register a MIME type.

 

W-21: This item is
at-risk.  John H is waiting for input from Prateek and RLBob.

 

W-25: Kerberos support
- Also at-risk; discussion has gone on, but there is no solution
proposal.

Eve: Add to technical
discussion list definitions and distinctions between profiles and
bindings.  John H and Tim will spend early next week working on the
solution proposal.

 

W-27: Nothing new.

 

W-28: Eve's proposal
is on the table.  Rebekah asked Eve to include a bit more of her proposal
for historical reference.  To be discussed on next focus call. 
Changes are pretty minimal.

Eve: Action to implement
28-b in core.

 

6. Review of latest version
of Issues list

Not enough time to cover this agenda item.

 

7. Action Item Review

Prateek will follow up with
AI owners.

 

#0127 Remove short-lived
assertion restriction from SSO Profiles

Owner: Scott Cantor

Status: Open

 

 

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-02-16
14:57 GMT

I can give a hand with this
(prateek)

 

 

#0126: Modify Trust Model
Submission and re-cast into SAML

Owner: Jeff Hodges

Status: Open

Assigned: 16
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0125: Propose language to
explain that AuthNResponse may contain attribute statements

Owner: Prateek Mishra

Status: Open

Assigned: 16
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-02-16
14:46 GMT

Easy to do but needs
proposal on validity of assertion life-times as well.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0124: Update meta-data
specification with identifiers for SAML entities

Owner: Jahan Moreh

Status: Open

Assigned: 13
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0123: Obtain MIME type
registration for HTTP lookup of SAML

Owner: Jeff Hodges

Status: Open

Assigned: 13
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0122: Arrangements for Austin
F2F

Owner: Michael McIntosh

Status: Open

Assigned: 13
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0121: Make a proposal that
meets the W-28a* goals and discussion points.

Owner: Eve Maler

Status: Open

Assigned: 11
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0119: Extension of AuthNRequest
- AuthNResponse protocol

Owner: Scott Cantor

Status: Open

Assigned: 11
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-02-11
22:35 GMT

Scott: Proposes to change AuthnRequest
to handle some of this.

Ron: would like to help

 

PROPOSAL: get basic
integration of AuthnRequest/Response and then look at the various use cases to
see how they can be integrated in. (Scott)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0118: Solution proposal for
encryption use-cases

Owner: Hal Lockhart

Status: Open

Assigned: 11
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-02-11
22:33 GMT

 

 

 

ACTION: Hal to produce text
to describe 3 use cases for SSTC to consider.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0117: Describe use-cases
for attribute-based SSO in relationship to ID-FF 1.2 NameIdPolicy

Owner: Prateek Mishra

Status: Open

Assigned: 11
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0116: Investigate removal
of NotBefore/NotOnOrAfter from BaseNameIdentifier

Owner: Scott Cantor

Status: Open

Assigned: 11
 Feb 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-02-11
22:17 GMT

 

ISSUE: Consider removing NotBefore/NotOnorAfter
based on sessions discussion. Sync up validity period (Scott)

 

ACTION: Scott to think about
this more

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0115: Update metadata
drafts with ID-FF 1.2 materials

Owner: Jahan Moreh

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-20
03:27 GMT

Jahan:

ACTION: Update the metadata
draft if necessary according to the latest ID-FF V1.2 materials. (Scott will
also review for this

purpose.)

 

 

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200312/msg00064.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0114: Propose language to
address attribute-based federation

Owner: Prateek Mishra

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

 

 

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200312/msg00064.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0112: Update (W-7)
discovery protocol solution proposal

Owner: Scott Cantor

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-20
03:17 GMT

ACTION: (SC) Update based on
replacement of hash of succint id by literal provider id.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0110: Feedback from LECP
profile interop

Owner: Frederick Hirsch

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-20
03:14 GMT

ACTION: (FH) Check with
Liberty Interop for any problems that may have arisen with

 

actual use of LECP profile.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0109: Security concerns
with LECP profile

Owner: Anthony Nadalin

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-20
03:12 GMT

ACTION: (FH) update to
respond to Tony's security questions but we need to ask Tony for the

 

specific problem he had in
mind.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0105: Respond to IBM
Analysis Paper

Owner:

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-19
23:09 GMT

- [ACTION] Scott & Tony
to make recommendations based on IBM security analysis paper

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0098: Why does XACML use a
URI-based type system

Owner: Eve Maler

Status: Open

Assigned: 19
 Jan 2004

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2004-01-19
22:30 GMT

 

AI: Eve to ask Anne Anderson
for the historical use cases that underlie the XACML decision to use a
URI-based type system.

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200401/msg00043.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

 

#0086: Non-HTTP use-cases
related to the LECP profile

Owner: Bob Morgan

Status: Open

Assigned: 23
 Nov 2003

Due: ---

Comments:

Prateek Mishra 2003-11-24
03:27 GMT

ACTION: Bob Morgan - more
use cases. More generic use cases, may be not involving HTTP. May involve web dav.
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread