Minutes from focus group call, April 20, 2003

April 20, 2003

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

 

Bob Morgan

Scott Cantor

John Hughes

Prateek Mishra

 

 

Prateek outlines his view of attributes based on 

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200404/msg00085.html

 

Scott suggests we retain URI-based 

attribute naming within core;
also include language explaining how to determine

identity of
<attributedesignators> for this case. Remaining attribute formats to be

described in SAML Attribute
Profiles document. <samlp:Resource> element may
not be

required in SAML 2.0 we should
send out a message asking if people are using this

 

Discussion about "CORE-11 Validity Period of Identifiers"

 

 

Point to Bob's message:

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200404/msg00048.html

 

No controversy about the main points here. Bob will describe changes to
the 

core document to pick up these
changes.

 

Bob's framework also applies to  the case where an encrypted
identifier is given

a life-time using a condition.

 

Scott proposes that identifiers with life-times be described in a
separate profile. 

General discussion about identifiers and life-time.
Prateek will generate an analysis

of name identifiers and whether a
life-time notion is needed more generally for federation

identifiers.

 

John raises question about adding "friendly name" to GUID
attribute names. Need both friendly name

and GUID. Scott raises concern
about use of "friendly name" <attributedesignator>; for
example, 

could one query by "friendly
name"? Prateek comments that the attribute profile could define all of
these

aspects of the profile.