RE: [regrep] [Fwd: SAML for ebXML Registry 3.0 Specifications]

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>]

Yes, I will add it to the agenda.

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:35 PM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [regrep] [Fwd: SAML for ebXML Registry 3.0 Specifications]


FYI... Richard tells me that the regrep-comment list is bouncing. Anyone

know why?
In any event here is his comment which he CCed me on.

I have heard the same issue that Richard raises from other advanced 
users of ebXML Registry.

As you may recall we have alignment with SAML planned for version 4. 
Given that OASIS Security Services TC:

    http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=security

has already approved SAML 1.1 it becomes more significant that we 
address SAML integration with ebXML Registry standard.

Based on Richard's comment I have started looking into what it will take

to support single signon based upon SAML 1.1 standard. Preliminary
research on SAML SOAP Binding:

*http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3405/oasis-sstc-saml-
bindings-1.1.pdf*

shows that we could easily add SAML 1.1 (and later SAML 2.0) support 
with no changes to RIM and
minor changes to ebRS. The change would be to describe how SAML 
assertions are communicated
within a SOAP-ENV:Body (see line 354 in SAML Bindings doc).

It seems that this could be a LOW Effort / HIGH Return feature to add to

our 3.0 specs and I am willing to
do the spec changes in ebRS 2.7 to accommodate it. An open issue is 
whether SAML support should be required or optional feature for ebXML
Registry.

Kathryn, can we please place this request on our agenda
for next meeting? Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh