Kelly Emo -- Voting on Issue 11-01

Ballot:

ISSUE:  [UC-11-01:AuthzUseCase]

2.  Remove this use case

David O. and I spoke at length about this yesterday.  I am in support of
this position as well, especially the point about focusing on one area that
we can deliver successfully (Authn) all the way to being able to demonstrate
compliance.

Kelly Emo
Senior Manager, Technology Alliances
Jamcracker, www.jamcracker.com

(408) 725-4373 office
(408) 725-4310 fax 


-----Original Message-----
From: Orchard, David [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:56 PM
To: ''
Subject: Dave O vote Use Case #11


Ballot:

ISSUE:[UC-11-01:AuthzUseCase]

2. Remove this use case.

My rationale is that I think our spec has 2 halves and I'd rather finish
them linearly, quickly and effectively.  My plan is to do SSO first, then
Authorization for SAML 1.1.  These 2 features seem very orthogonal to me.
This means that some vendor may implement AuthZ, and another implement
Authn.  So who is SAML compliant?  I'd like to focus on one thing at a time
without this "two-headed" spec we have.  

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that this measure will pass given the
votes I've seen so far.

Dave Orchard
XML Architect
Jamcracker Inc.,    19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408.864.5118     m: 604.908.8425    f: 408.725.4310

www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: