Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: RSA Interop optional use cases
Title: RSA Interop optional use cases
Based on the last call, I had the
impression that the federation/defederation use case was far more important to
demo as an optional case than the other 3. Personally, in this demo
environment, I don’t find IDP discovery very interesting and it’s more
network configuration than I think is worth dealing with.
Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer
RSA Security Inc.
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
mailto:
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
Next in thread →
Next in month →