RE: [security-services] Back office scenarios / W-10

Excellent. 

One thought : We should add firewall issues/scenarios when crossing company
boundaries. I agree that firewall issues would be therer even internally,
but are more difficult when we cross organizationl boundaries. The boeing
scenario by Mike had the firewall opportunities. Thoughts ?

-k.  

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gravengaard [mailto:] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:16 PM
> To: ; 
> 
> Krishna,
> 
> I have attached a similar use case write up. I would be 
> interested in helping to work through the differences between 
> Darren's and mine, although they are minor and mostly deal 
> with the nature of mine as crossing company boundaries. Let 
> me know how I can help with this work item.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:] 
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> To: 'Eve L. Maler'; 
> Subject: [security-services] Back office scenarios / W-10
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 	The B2B scenario from Darren Platt (in pdf format !).
> 	
> 	So far, I can see, W-10 has two components - carry over 
> (rejected)
> items from SAML 1.x, and the back office scenario.
> 
> 	a)	During F2F we decided not to reiterate the
> action/aggregation of multiple bid use case, which I think is 
> the (rejected)
> carry over from the 1.x days for W-10.
> 	
> 	b)	The back office scenario, a good use case from 
> Darren, fits
> into the web service work item (I think it was W-15 or W-16. Just as a
> pointer, W-11 was also collapsed with that work item, I think)
> 
> 	So my suggestion is : Retire W-10, add Darren's use 
> case to the web
> service work item.
> 
> 	A related question : The W-11 is related to firewall 
> traversal. I
> hope we have that item still in the works. This *could* be slightly
> different from assertions across web services. Haven't seen 
> the new work
> item list.
> 
> -k. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Platt [mailto:] 
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:55 AM
> To: 
> 
> Hi Krishna,
> 
> A brief write-up is attached.  Let me know if you want more detail.
> 
> Sorry I didn't get this to you before the F2F.
> 
> Darren
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:53 PM
> > To: 
> > Subject: RE: Back office scenarios
> >
> >
> > Darren,
> >
> > 	Thanks. A description of the scenario would be 
> excellent. Also if
> > you have any more general ideas, pl add them in. I do not think
> > we have time
> > to discuss but should be able to go over a couple of rounds 
> over e-mail. I
> > will present the ideas at the f2f (if we get a slot).
> >
> > -k.
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Darren Platt [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:51 PM
> > > To: 
> > >
> > > Hi Krishna,
> > >
> > > Let me know how you would like to work together on the
> > > back-office scenario
> > > issue we signed up for on the concall.  I have a pretty good
> > > recollection of
> > > what we intended when we suggested it, but not having been
> > > involved in SAML
> > > for a while, I'm not sure what else it may now mean.
> > >
> > > If you'd like, I could write up a description of a scenario
> > > for what I have
> > > in mind and send it to you.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Darren
> > >
> > > ********************************************
> > > Darren Platt
> > > Ping Identity Corporation
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>