"Maneesh Sahu" <> wrote on 06/24/2004 06:20:25
PM:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Adding a wsu:Id to the SecurityToken - the SAML Assertion in this case
> would cause it to violate the SAML schema. Is this permissible?
Maneesh,
The proposal is not to add anything to the existing SAML Assertion, but to
create a SAMLToken element with a wsu:Id attribute and a child SAML
Assertion element.
Thanks,
Mike
>
> --ms
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McIntosh [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:04 PM
> To: Ron Monzillo
> Cc: Anthony Nadalin;
> Subject: Re: [wss] Comments on SAML Token Profile
>
> Ron Monzillo <> wrote on 06/24/2004 12:01:08 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> >
> > > We ran into some inconsistencies while participating in the recent
> > > SAML interop. The WSS core specification describes a "Direct
> > > Reference" mechanism to be used with STRs. A Reference element with
> a
> > > URI attribute is used. When the referenced token is located within
> the
>
> > > Security header, the URI contains a shorthand XPointer reference to
> > > the token. In order for this to work, the token element must contain
>
> > > an attribute of type ID. WSS defines the wsu:Id attribute with type
> ID
>
> > > for naming the reference. Direct references within the message
> should
> > > not require token specific methods so we suggest the following
> actions
>
> > > be taken:
> > >
> > > 1) Errata to the WSS core to make it clear the tokens must have an
> > > attribute named wsu:Id.
> > > 2) Change to the SAML Token Profile to use an wsu:Id attribute or
> use
> > > a wsse:KeyIdentifier
> > >
> > These changes are not a good idea.
>
> It is a good idea, otherwise the dereferencing mechanism would require
> XML
> schema processing to enable it to identify which attributes were ID
> type.
>
> Please see my response to Rich Levinson.
>
> >
> > The wsu:id attribute was defined for use as a convenience where new
> shema
> > elements are being defined, or with elements which support attribute
> > extensibility
> > and which do not already include an id attribute.
> >
> > The only constraint on using an STR Direct Reference with a fragment
> > containing
> > an id value is that the thing being referenced must have an attribute
> of
>
> > type id.
> >
> > In SAML V1.1 the AssertionID attribute so qualifies, that is:
> >
> > <attribute name="AssertionID" type="ID" use="required"/>
>
> I do not understand the aversion to adding the wrapper element. It seems
>
> to me that it makes it easier for services to support the profile. Using
>
> the known ID type of wsu:Id facilitates extensibility of platforms to
> enable new token types. Using token specific mechanisms for references
> potentially requires modifying the core WSS dereferencing processing for
>
> every new token type.
>
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > PS: I also concurr with Rich Levinson
> >
> > > In particular, the ValueType attribute (lines 702-708) appears to be
>
> > > intended
> > > to provide token-specific processing rules to be applied in
> > > conjunction with
> > > the URI attribute. In the case of SAML 1.1 assertions, the SAML
> ValueType
> > > indicates that the saml:AssertionID should be treated as an XML ID
> type
> > > attribute.
> >
> > >
> > > Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of
> the OASIS
> > TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup
> .php.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup
> .php.
>
>
>
