I'm making inquiries on this front via contacts within my company, and I'll report as soon as I can.
::Ari
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Scavo [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:29 PM
> To: Scott Cantor
> Cc: Ari Kermaier;
> Subject: Re: [security-services] Groups -
> sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10-diff.pdf uploaded
>
>
> On 8/15/06, Scott Cantor <> wrote:
> > > But w.r.t. stability of drafts, my main concern is that AFAIK
> > > this profile was originally submitted to support a particular
> > > use case defined by certain US government agencies.
> >
> > Right, but I haven't heard from those constituencies
> lately. Is the draft
> > still needed? Whose RFP needs were being addressed and do
> they still have
> > them?
> >
> > > As interoperability with these already existing deployments is
> > > likely to be a major driver of adoption of this profile, we
> > > should take care not to break interop with the original
> > > profile if at all possible.
> >
> > As originally conceived, there could be no existing
> deployments since it was
> > being written while SAML 2.0 was being written. Have there
> been deployments
> > since? If so, it's worth asking how well that went.
>
> These questions are paramount. If backwards compatibility with
> previous drafts is a goal, many of my previous comments are irrelevant
> and many of Ari's concerns are non-issues. We need to answer this
> question before spinning our wheels further.
>
> Tom
>
