[security-services] Thoughts wrt draft-sstc-saml-issues-status-01

Below's my personal take on saml-issues-status-01. I've listed only the issues
where I have a different opinion on their status. 

my $.02.

JeffH

>    Line#
>    -----
>       1  OASIS SSTC Open Issues Status 
> 
> 
>       2   
> 
>       3  draft-sstc-saml-issues-status-01 
> 
>       4   
> 
>       5  January 21, 2002 
> 
>       6  Hal Lockhart 
> 
>       7 
                         .
                         .
                         .

>      36  ISSUE:[UC-7-02:Enveloped] 
>      37  Core specification in XML Signature Profile states that SAML assertions and protocols must use 
>      38  enveloped signatures. Recommend this be closed with a resolution of deferred. 

status=CLOSED
resolution=assns are "fit for being enveloped" 

> 
>      57  ISSUE:[UC-9-02:PrivacyStatement] 

status=DEFERRED

>      75  Design Issues 
> 
>      76  Group 1: Naming Subjects 
>
>      77  ISSUE:[DS-1-02: Anonymity Technique] 

status=DEFERRED

> 
>      87  ISSUE:[DS-1-06: MultipleSubjects] 

status=CLOSED

> 
>      91  ISSUE:[DS-1-07: MultpleSubjectConfirmations] 

status=CLOSED

> 
>      95  ISSUE:[DS-1-08: HolderofKey] 

status=OPEN

> 
>     100  ISSUE:[DS-1-09: SenderVouches] 

status=OPEN

>     109  ISSUE:[DS-3-02: ClockSkew] 

status=DEFERRED if someone willing to argue for future consideration, else
status=CLOSED

> 
>     112  ISSUE:[DS-3-03: ValidityDependsUpon] 

status=DEFERRED if someone willing to argue for future consideration, else
status=CLOSED

> 
>     114  Group 4: Assertion Style 
>     115  ISSUE:[DS-4-02: XML Terminology] 
>     116  This is no longer subject to debate. Recommend closing it. 

champion=JeffH

status=CLOSED

write-up...

wrt: DS-4-02: XML Terminology 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200109/msg00054.html

> 
>     117  ISSUE:[DS-4-04: URIs for Assertion IDs] 

champion=JeffH

status=CLOSED

write-up...

composition of AssertionID (Issue: DS-4-04: URIs for Assertion IDs)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200106/msg00025.html

> 
>     120  ISSUE:[DS-4-05: SingleSchema] 

status=CLOSED

>     123  ISSUE:[DS-4-08: anyAtttribute] 
>     124  anyAttribute has not been added to the core schema. It is also not clear if there are additional 
>     125  issues relating to attribute schemas. This needs resolution. 
>     126  Champion: Eve Maler 

status=OPEN

>     134  ISSUE:[DS-5-04: Request Reference] 
>     135  AssertionSpecifier has been dropped from Subject. Recommend closing it. 
> 

status=DEFERRED

>     136  Group 6: Attributes 
>     137  ISSUE:[DS-6-01: Nested Attributes] 

status=DEFERRED

>     144  ISSUE:[DS-6-05: AttributeScope] 

status=CLOSED

"AttributeNamespace" satisfies this?

>     173  Group 9: Request Handling 
>     174  ISSUE:[DS-9-01: AssertionID Specified] 

status=OPEN

processing model not yet clearly defined.

 

>     187  ISSUE:[DS-9-05: RequestAttributes] 
>     188  Current core does not include this element. Perhaps Target satisfied this requirement? This 
>     189  appears to be unresolved. 
>     190  Champion: Simon Godik 

status=DEFERRED

>  ISSUE:[DS-9-06:Locate attributeAuthorities]

in-process as of 22-Jan concall

status=OPEN

>     200  ISSUE:[DS-9-10: IssueInstant in Req&Response] 
>     201  Current core does not include this feature. This appears unresolved. 
>     202  Champion: Scott Cantor 

status=OPEN

>     206  Group 11: Authorization Decision Assertions 
>     207  ISSUE:[DS-11-01: MultipleSubjectAssertions] 
>     208  Current core permits multiple subjects. I don’t see any discussion of the semantics. This is 
>     209  unresolved. 

status=DEFERRED

 
> 
>     225  ISSUE:[DS-12-06: RequestALLAttrbs] 
>     226  Current core does not seem to specify any way to ask for all attributes. This is unresolved. 

status=DEFERRED

>     242  ISSUE:[DS-14-07: BearerIndication] 
>     243  This functionality is provided in the Web Browser Post Profile, which specifies the use of a 
>     244  bearer SubjectConfirmationMethod, but this is not present in the core spec. This is unresolved. 

status=CLOSED

addressed by SubjectConfirmation et al

>     252  ISSUE:[DS-14-11: CompareElements] 
>     253  Current core is silent on how these element are to be compared. This would seem to imply only 
>     254  exact binary matching. Recommend this be closed. 

status=OPEN

I echo Steve Farrell's concerns about this -- we likely need to think more
carefully about this. 

---
end