Status of my action items:
Mishra, Prateek wrote:
> *#0161*: Remove KeyInfo from Assertion top-level
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> *Status*: Open
> *Assigned*: 30 Apr 2004
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-30 18:16 GMT
> o Mike - what is difference in meaning for KeyInfo at top versus KeyInfo
> inside SubjectConfirmationData
>
> o Eve - no, just a syntactic
>
> o discussion ensues, decision to remove KeyInfo
>
> o Prateek - eliminating holder of key, Ron will have comments
>
> o Decision - remove KeyInfo, allow within SubjectConfirmationData
>
> *** AI - Eve to implement decision on core 18 after checking with Ron
This was done in core-10. You can see it on lines 598-600 and 611 here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/6347/sstc-saml-core-2.0-draft-10-diff.pdf
> *#0144*: Explain optional subject decision
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> *Status*: Open
> *Assigned*: 29 Apr 2004
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-29 21:51 GMT
> *** AI: Eve: Optional subject implemented in core spec prose. Schema
> shows that subject is optional.
>
> o Eve: Has wanted to create a rationale for some of the decisions made
> on spec. Decision on subject less statements is a good example of what
> needs to be documented. Making an explicit design decision that is not
> really explicit on. By choosing to add prose to core spec we're making a
> stealth abstract profile (generic design decision) that applies to all
> explicit profiles.
>
> o Scott: data model (design) decision to require subjects in all SAML
> statements.
This is still open. (In fact, I'd clean forgotten about it. :-)
> *#0143*: Check SAML schema for consistency
>
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
>
> *Status*: Open
>
> *Assigned*: 29 Apr 2004
>
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-29 21:49 GMT
> *** Follow-up: Examine SAML schema for consistent use of XML attributes
> vs. elements
Still open.
> *#0141*: Review/fix boilerplace text for Artifact Protocol
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> *Status*: Open
> *Assigned*: 27 Apr 2004
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-27 15:24 GMT
> o Prateek: Should we sign or authenticate?
>
> o Scott: Common language on all protocol messages.
>
> o Prateek: Concerned about text on line 2118 "...SHOULD be signed or
> otherwise authenticated...."
>
> o Scott: Not a MUST, need to provide some recommendation to protect
> message.
>
> o Eve: this is boiler plate text for all messages. Need to agree on the
> correct text for this.
>
> ***Follow-up: Review/fix boilerplate text re: recommendation for
> protecting messages
Still open. Will try to do this today.
> *#0140*: Update extensions element to use ##other
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> *Status*: Open
> *Assigned*: 27 Apr 2004
>
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-27 15:22 GMT
> Scott - added Extensions element - modeled to be consistent with SOAP
> header element - i.e. multiple extensions within one Extensions (header)
> element.
> o Discussion of ##any vs. ##other.
>
> o Should use ##other.
>
> o Scott - should we have a wrapper element for extensions?
>
> *** Follow-up: Resolution: change Extension to use ##other
This was done on line 1191 of core-09:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/6323/sstc-saml-core-2.0-draft-09-diff.pdf
> *#0135*: Why does signature need to be the first element?
>
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
>
> *Status*: Open
>
> *Assigned*: 27 Apr 2004
>
> *Due*: ---
>
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-27 15:00 GMT
> - Eve to ask Bhavna to post motivation for moving Signature to
> front
Bhavna has since sent a message that she was unable to find a suitable
rationale, and was happy to leave the position as it is now, as long as
it's in a *predictable* location:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200404/msg00113.html
I suggest that we just close this one.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
