mace-opensaml-users - RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback
Subject: OpenSAML user discussion
List archive
- From: "Scott Cantor" <>
- To: "'Tim Freeman'" <>, "'Tom Scavo'" <>
- Cc: <>, <>
- Subject: RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:45:16 -0500
- Organization: The Ohio State University
> This document "Use of SAML for OGSA Authorization" outlines the details:
> http://www.globus.org/toolkit/security/ogsa/authz/OGSA-SAML-au
> thorization-profile-june4.pdf
Is the intent to keep using a legacy SAML specification, and/or a deprecated
feature of SAML in general?
I understand that you still have to support the existing profile, I'm just
asking about the future direction.
I'm not looking forward to a SAML 2.1, but I would definitely not want to
see authorization decision kept *again* because people were still using it.
So maybe the better question is, even if we implement the 2.0 version, can
people please not use it? ;-)
-- Scott
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, (continued)
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/06/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/06/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.