It is an interesting idea-particularly since the SAML meta schema is
so rich--but it does require that the PDP be tied to SAML. Early on
in the TC the thinking was that XACML needs to maintain its
independence re: implementation. Do we still feel that way?
b
On May 15, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to implement your PDP metadata as part
> of the SAML metadata? The metadata has to be conveyed to clients
> somehow anyway, so implementing it as part of an existing protocol
> makes some sense.
>
> The current proposal in the (in progress) SAML Profile Version 2.0
> Working Draft 3 is to implement
> a) XACMLPDPDescriptor having standard SAML 2.0 metadata compliant
> PDP info.
> b) XACMLPDPConfig holding extended PDP information. This might be
> where the attribute timing, XACML version, Obligation support, etc.
> should go.
> c) XACMLAuthzDecisionQueryDescriptor - PEP endpoint info
> d) XACMLAuthzDecisionQueryConfig - extended PEP information.
>
> See Issue#74 in the Issues list:http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xacml/
> IssuesList
>
> Anne
>
> Bill Parducci wrote:
>> I am going to give emailing to this list one more shot ;)
>> It would be helpful if the interop participants could keep their
>> eyes open for implementation attributes that are key/useful for
>> establishing interoperability. Where it makes since I would like
>> to incorporate these into the PDP meta schema.
>> I am currently working on meta info re: Attribute calculation,
>> XACML version and Obligation support.
>> thanks
>> b
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: -
>> open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: -
>> open.org
>
> --
> Anne H. Anderson Email:
> Sun Microsystems Laboratories
> 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928
> Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
