Title: RSA Interop optional use cases
Bob,
we can discuss on Wednesday, but I don't think we should limit it to just one.
If there are several vendors that are willing, I think we should definitely
attempt this (particularly since we have an opportunity for a dry run). Without
the optional cases, we are just doing exactly what was done last
year.
In any
case, here are the rankings from Entrust. We would like to do both of the
first 2 at the interop. I will try and put together a strawman use case
for the first two prior to Wed's meeting. The third one below is probably a
simple use case -- just a matter if folks want to do it. I'll leave the Authn
Query to others.
(1) From the
call, a federation/defederation example was discussed, which would involve
extending some of the base use cases and adding a Name Identifier Management
case.
(1a)
Attribute Query - this should include
dynamic values of some wort as discussed on a call a few weeks
ago.
(2)
Identity Provider Discovery
(4)
Authentication Query
-----Original Message-----
From: Ciochon, Robert
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:02
PM
To: samldemotech
Subject: RSA Interop optional use
cases
On Wednesday's call, we ran out of time to discuss
any optional use cases for the RSA Interop demo. The first issue to
resolve is if we really want to have optional use cases. On one hand,
these cases will demonstrate that more functionality is available with SAML
V2.0. On the other hand, since all vendors will not be showing the
optional functionality, it may appear that SAML V2.0 is not a universally
agreed upon standard. Plus it involves additional effort with greater
risk.
Assuming there is interest in pursuing optional use
cases, the following were the highest ranked in the vendor survey:
Identity Provider Discovery
Attribute Query
Authentication Query
From the call, a federation/defederation example
was discussed, which would involve extending some of the base use cases and
adding a Name Identifier Management case.
If you are interested in implementing an optional
use case, please indicate which would be your preference based on a
ranking of 1 to 4, with 1 being most
interested and 4 the least interested. I will then tabulate these and
begin to define
a proposal of exactly what the use case would be
which we can discuss on the next call. I recommend only 1 optional
case
be added due to the time limitations.
Regards,
Bob
Robert Ciochon
eTrust Development Manager
Computer
Associates
San Diego, California
(858) 625-6866
