Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:42:38
-0500
To: "samldemotech" <>
From:
Dave Silver <>
Subject: RE: RSA Interop 2005
Guidelines
Cc: "Mark Joynes"
<>
The E-Auth Portal uses a cookie, but it is not persistent. This
is for privacy reasons. We recommend that the user start the demo by
opening a browser, and end the demo by closing the browser. If the
user forgets to close the browser, the presenter can do so before the next
demo. Please let us know if you have additional
questions.
At 02:06 PM 1/19/2005, Ciochon, Robert wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the feedback. Please see my comments
below.
Everyone,
I have flagged a few items that I would like additional
feedback on. Please respond or I'll bring them up on the
call.
Dave Silver
or Terry McBride,
Would you please address Tom's question
below?
14. Section 4.2 (a
question for Enspier). It's not clear to me how the eAuth site knows which
IDP the user has selected. Are they using persistent cookie? I.e., I'm
asking this to understand what can or cannot be done at the SP. I.e,. if we
do the eAuth use case for a couple of SPs and then do the logout. Then a new
user tries the demo, how does the eAuth portal know this is a new request
(i.e., the user is no longer logged on to the intial IDP)? It would seem
that the link back to the eAuth site would require a CCID=<idp entity
id> parameter much like the one that is sent to the SP. Section
4.2.2 mentions using cookies to avoid propagation (but I don't think this
will work).
Regards,
Bob
From: Thomas Wisniewski [mailto:]
Sent:
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:18 AM
To: Ciochon, Robert;
samldemotech
Cc: Mark Joynes
Subject: RE: RSA Interop
2005 Guidelines
Bob,
nice job putting this together. Here are some comments on the use
cases/guidelines.
1. General question for optional use case: Can we allow
users to perform additional federations from an SP. I.e., after the user
federates, login in again, and prior to or after they defederate, they can
have the capability to re-federate with the defederated IDP or they can have
the capability to federate with additional IDPs. Obviously this is something
that we would take them thru. Similar to defederation, which is something
that might be done after a user leaves the demo site, additional federations
could be left up to each vendor.
[bobc] I think we are all concerned with introducing too much
complexity into the demo scenarios due to limited amount of time we will
have with each customer and the amount of time to test and verify each
scenario. The optional use case was designed to demonstrate federation
clearly and simply. Could someone show more? Sure, the tools are
all there. But I would prefer to keep things as simple as possible at
this stage.
2.
Section 2.1 bullet 5. I'm not sure if this bullet is necessary (i.e., bullet
6 is enough). I.e., the use case is always from a solicited SP AuthnRequest
and not initiated at the IDP.
[bobc] I'll leave it in. Better too much...
3. Section 2.2
bullet 7. The text says "Initiate a redirect to...". I think you mean to say
"Provide a link to..."
[bobc] I will change that.
4. Section 2.2 bullet 8. We should discuss, for the
federation case, when the user is required to log into the SP. I.e., this
can be before the IDP login or after. Are we saying it's up to the SP or
does it always have to be after the IDP login.
[bobc] We can discuss this further on the call to see
what people agree on.
5. End of section 2.2. You added a possible requriement of displaying
the xml documents that were exchanged. Do users really want to see this?
Also, what are you thoughts on how this is presented (e.g., thru an external
screen/log, or on the actual user browser screen)?
[bobc] This was a carryover from last year
and is up to each vendor if or how they display this. It is basically
a trace log to lend some credence to what is being shown.
6. Section 3.1
first sentence. You say four, but I think you mean three (i.e., login,
logout, and eAuth). I think that breakdown works the best. I think you
should move section 4.2 after the logout discussion so it will be section
4.2. Then change sections 4.3 and 4.4 into 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Basically
following the same format/structure you defined in the summary section
3.1.
[bobc] I actually meant
SP initiated login, idP initiated login, SP initiated logout and idP
initiated logout as the 4 base SAML cases, and then eAuth as a separate 5th
case. I'll have a look at the section setups when I update it next
time.
7. Section
3.1.3, item 2b. s/on the SP is/on the SP and is/
[bobc] WIll change that.
8. General comment on the optional use case.
I beleive the SP should state which name id format it is requesting, i.e.,
x509 subj name or a persistent id. This is done via the NameIDPolicy
element. This implies that the SP site, which lists the IDPs that support
persistent identifiers, needs to be smart enough to distinguish between the
2 types of identifiers when calling and IDP. We had said this would be based
on the user name. However, if the answer to (4) above is that the user logs
into the IDP before the SP, then the SP does not know who the user is and
therefore cannot be sure which NameIDPolicy to use. I'm proposing the SP has
additional smarts in it (each vendor does this however they want) so that
the IDP links on the SP site hare two-fold. There are links for the base
case IDPs and links for the optional IDPs. Additionally, the eAuth use case
always implies the base case IDPs, hence x509 Ssubject names. Section
6, item 1, wording would be updated accordingly.
[bobc] I was heading in that direction myself on the
last call when people said they could just figure things out from the user
name. Let's discuss this some more on the call today since I think
your method will simplify things for the demo
staff.
9. Section
3.2, item 4 and 5. I don't believe this requirement was mentioned on any
call/email. I.e., obtaining user consent is up to each individual provider.
I suppose these could be optional steps but they should not be required.
I.e., when a user clicks on the IDP link at the SP, they are consentng to
federation. The same goes for section 6 bullet 4.
[bobc] I think it was mentioned in passing when
discussing this case and was never explicitly called out. I know this
was a big deal in the Liberty Alliance specs. Let's discuss on the
call.
10. Section
3.2, item 8. s/SP triggering/SP via the IDP triggering/ The idea being
the user does another saml login at the IDP by initiating it at the SP
(basically a repeat of your item 1). To me it seemed like the text in item 8
is suggesting that perhaps the user logs in at the SP.
[bobc] That is more accurate and will be
changed.
11.
Section 3.2, item 9. s/on the web page/on the SP web page/
[bobc] I will change this.
12. Section
4.1.2, item 3. s/of links to the SP resources/of SP resources/ ^
s//(URLs)/ The text suggest the links (actual URLs) are to the SP site
when they are actually urls back to the IDP with some TARGET=xxx or
RelayState=xxx query parameter.
[bobc] I will change this
13. Section 4.1.2, item 4. s/resource links
and/resources and/
[bobc] I
will change this.
14. Section 4.2 (a question for Enspier). It's not clear to me how
the eAuth site knows which IDP the user has selected. Are they using
persistent cookie? I.e., I'm asking this to understand what can or cannot be
done at the SP. I.e,. if we do the eAuth use case for a couple of SPs and
then do the logout. Then a new user tries the demo, how does the eAuth
portal know this is a new request (i.e., the user is no longer logged on to
the intial IDP)? It would seem that the link back to the eAuth site would
require a CCID=<idp entity id> parameter much like the one that is
sent to the SP. Section 4.2.2 mentions using cookies to avoid
propagation (but I don't think this will work).
[bobc] Moved up for reply.
16. Section 5.1 item 1b. The Saml spec
requires subject confirmation data, s/MUST NOT/MUST/ and the
data should include recipient, notOnOrAfter, etc..... In general I
think you can remove section 3. This is just a restatement of what is
mandatory in the saml spec. I.e., similar to saying you need to include an
IssuerName, etc....
[bobc]
Some carryover from last year's doc. I'll take it out if people find
it confusing.
17.
Along the lines of S3ction 5.2.1 item 1, an AuthnRequest should either not
inlcude an RequestedAuthnContext element or should value this with
run:...:Password.
[bobc]
Anyone else have feedback on this one? It is a carryover as well.
18. Section
5.2.1, item 2 and section 7.1, item 3. Why are there any restrictions
at all on SubjectLocality? Shouldn't this just be up to the
IDP.
[bobc] I gather this
was added last year because people had some problems with DNSName.
Anyone else have feedback on this one?
19. Section 5.2.2, item 1. Is everyone ok, with the 3
attributes. It seems like using postal address (someone else suggested this
attribute at a prior meeting) would add to the personalization features of
the demo.
[bobc] Anyone else
have feedback on this?
20. Section 8.1.1, bullet 1 and 3 AND section 8.1.2
bullet 2. I thought we agreed that there would be one SP resource for each
SP and each vendor would only have one IDP. So change the zero or more
reference to there is one of these per vendor. Anything beyond one would
complicate the eAuth site, the links necessary on each SP/IDP,
etc...
[bobc] Not every
vendor is required to provide both an SP and an idP. As I recall,
someone mentioned that last year not all vendors provided both. That
is why the zero. I will change the "more" to "one".
21. Section
8.1.1, bullet 3. s/URL to the idp logon page/The SAML entity id of the
IDP/ The entity id format is like a url but it is NOT a url and is not
meant to be the idp login url.
[bobc] I was using the recommendation in the spec, especially since
we are only using front channel bindings. I was trying to make it
simple, but can change it if it is not accurate for our demos.
22. Section 8.1.2
bullet 3. Actually remove the IDP entity id reference from 8.1.1 and move it
here, note that this is a URL but an entity id
only.
23. Section
8.1.2 bullet 1. For issuer name, is this a string for display
purposes?
[bobc] I believe
that is how it was used last year.
24. Section 8.1.4. I would say copy the list of vendors
into A.2 as well. I.e., store the value for <Vendor> in the appendix
so it's easy to retrieve. Also, in A.2 perhaps store the following data
point: IDP-Basic, SP-Basic, IDP-Optional, SP-Optional to indicate which
vendor is doing what. It would be really helpful to nail this down before
the dry run.
[bobc] I plan
to add that in somehow once I have who is supporting what.
25. Section
8.1.4, I would suggest sticking with the same password convention as the
base case. I.e., the password is the same as the userid. It just makes
things easier I think.
[bobc] Or should we make just one password that is the same for all
users for both base and optional? Anyone else have feedback on this?
26. Section 9.2.2
bullet 5 s/qill/will/
[bobc]
I will fix that.
27. Section A.2 and 8.1.1. The additional URLs that are necesary (in
A.2 and in 8.1.1) include:
- SingleSignOnService (at IDP for base and
optional case)
- AssertionConsumerService (at SP for base and optional
case)
- SingleLogoutService (request) (at IDP and SP for base and
optional case)
- SingleLogoutService (response) (at IDP and SP for base
and optional case)
- ManageNameIDService (request) (at IDP and SP for
optional case only)
- ManageNameIDService (response) (at IDP and SP for
optional case only)
[bobc]
Will expand those sections
28. Section A.2 and 8.1.2. The additional identifiers
that are necessary (in A.2 and in 8.1.2) include:
- SP entity id (simliar
to idp entity id).
- Receiver Name (similar to the idp issuer name).
I.e., a display name for the SP.
[bobc] Will add receiver name. SP entity id is same question as
idP.
Tom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ciochon, Robert [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:17 PM
To: samldemotech
Subject: RSA Interop 2005 Guidelines
Hi,
Attached is the first cut at defining the
guidelines and use cases for the SAML Interop at RSA 2005. Please
send me any feedback, questions, clarifications, etc...
Regards,
Bob
<<RSA2005-saml-interop.doc>>
Robert Ciochon
eTrust Development Manager
Computer Associates
San Diego, California
(858) 625-6866
