Re: [security-services] LA 1.1, SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0

[Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@sun.com>]

"Mishra, Prateek" wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> As you are aware we had voted to request from LA permission to create
> specifications that utilized the LA 1.1 specification set as part of SAML
> 2.0.
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200303/msg00029.html
> 
> Subsequently, we have received from LA a statement that grants us such
> rights.
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200304/msg00072.html
> 
> The SSTC has also been engaged in creating SAML 1.1. There are several
> different components to SAML 1.1 in progress which can be placed in one of
> two buckets:
> 
> (1) Corrections, clarifications and advice on use of SAML 1.0
> specifications.
> 
> (2) Additions to SAML 1.0
> 
> Category (2) includes two work items that also appear in LA 1.1:
> 
> (A) "Destination-Site First" web browser profile
> (B) (Web Browser Profile)/General Meta-data Specification
> 
> I would like to propose for DISCUSSION the idea that in the current
> circumstances we should avoid including Category (2) items in SAML 1.1. Why?
                                         ^
                               just those two (A,B) ?


> Because we are in a situation where we will end up having to revisit these
> issues in SAML 2.0. There will also be confusion in the field as SAML 1.1
> features and SAML 2.0 features will be seen as colliding.
> 
> My suggestion would be to create draft specifications in this category,
> which we would then submit into the SAML 2.0 mix. This would also ensure
> that all the effort that went into them was carried forward appropriately.

thanks,

JeffH