"Mishra, Prateek" <> wrote on 06/25/2004 10:34:27 AM:
> These are two distinct comments that need to be considered independent
of each
> other. The first comment refers to an alleged inadequacy in an OASIS
standard and
> the second comment suggests that this inadequacy be resolved BEFORE
profiles can be
> built against the Standard. I believe this raises significant procedural
issues
> that the TC should provide guidance on, if necessary, via a vote.
>
> The WSS Core (?Web Services Security: SOAP Message V1.0?) is an OASIS
standard
> that has been voted on and accepted by this TC and by OASIS. There are
many
> profiles that will build on this standard. It would be an astonishing
situation if
> profiles were blocked because of alleged issues with the standard.
Essentially it
> would mean that any profile that is built against the standard can be
challenged at
> any point based on allegations of inadequacy with the standard. It also
brings into
> question of the use of the word ?Standard? for WSS Core.
I don't want to block the SAML Profile, I want it to move forward with one
minor change, binging it in line with other token profiles.
> I would urge the Chairs to consider these comments in two parts:
>
> (1) Proposed errata for ?Web Services Security: SOAP Message V1.0?.
Once the TC
> has decided to accept such an errata (Is there a formal errata document
and
> process?) it can be added to the errata list and incorporated within a
future ?Web
> Services Security: SOAP Message V1.1?.
> (2) Comments on the SAML Token Profile as based on the interoperability
tests,
> current draft and the following OASIS standards --- SAML 1.1 and ?Web
Services
> Security: SOAP Message V1.0?. Comments that fall outside these
boundaries should be
> considered out-of-scope,
My comment is based on the fact that, during the interop, in order for us
(IBM) to implement dereferencing of local direct references, we had to
modify code in what was the token independent portion of our
implementation. We do not want to start a trend that requires us to update
this common code every time we want to support a new token type.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Prateek Mishra
>
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: [wss] Comments on SAML Token Profile
>
> 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
>
> Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
