>
> >>>>> "EN" == Edwards, Nigel <> writes:
>
> EN> I agree with the sentiments expressed
> EN> [UC-8-05:AtomicAssertions]. I think SAML assertions should be
> EN> atomic. I think managing valid signatures over assertion
> EN> fragments is an unnecessary complexity.
>
> EN> However, I think an intermediary might also in some cases
> EN> legitimately remove an atomic assertion, provided no signature
> EN> was invalidated by doing so. An example is pointed out in
> EN> [UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete]. In this case the intermediary
> EN> does it to make a purchase order anonymous, once it has
> EN> validated that purchase order. I would be happy to see a
> EN> modified version of [UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete] that dealt
> EN> with atomic assertions.
>
> So, there are a couple of options here. One is that the intermediary
> simply drops the identifying authn assertion altogether (making any
> authz decision assertions invalid, as far as I can tell). Or, it
> replaces the authn assertion with one of its own.
>
> Both make sense to me -- but it seems hard to state them as
> requirements.
>
Either option will work. If authz assertions are bound to principal
identities
and not authn assertions, removing authn assertions, does not necessarily
invalidate authz assertions.
I am not arguing for a new requirement, merely suggesting that the submitter
of the use case, modify it.
Nigel.
