xacml — archive

RE: [xacml] XACML TC position on SAML Attribute meta-data

From: Daniel Engovatov <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:50:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















xacml message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [xacml] XACML TC position on SAML Attribute meta-data




From: "Daniel Engovatov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:05:45 -0700







You are right.

Ideally, the name structure should be compatible without any mangling
required.   But if we are to consider any particular name parts to be
separated (such as the scope), we should communicate that to the SAML
community.   I suggest that we do consider.

(My personal preference is to have the name of an attribute to consist
of an URL scope/source and string identifier.  With Subject/Resource
etc. being a mandatory defined instance of such a scope.)

BTW: I did not understand completely: how are SAML attributes mapped
into our existing attribute divisions?  

Daniel.