Shibboleth Developers

everything else is done for 1.0.... so we're gonna reach a decision 
on this today......

The intent of this note is to identify where we have agreement, and 
what's still outstanding.....

Looking back thru this thread, I can  find some concepts that I 
*think* we have rough consensus on:

- use a urn rather than url (altho Scott continues to make the point 
that these should be dereferencable)

-  that URN WOULD refer to both the LDAP-context-defined and 
SAML/XML-context-defined object

- the need for a registry (  Keith: I do think we have to own up to 
the registry part of this sooner rather than later, though the 
registry could be an html table on some MACE web page for the near 
term, at least.)

- registration of a urn is distinct from the document-based 
definition of an  attribute


I see one item still being discussed/wrangled over (the syntax of the 
tail piece of the urn)... altho the discussion surfaces in several 
different ways:

- use a flat namespace for attributes, or should it be organized in 
some fashion?

- should we organize the namespace with document names (the documents 
that define the attributes, eg eduPerson, eduOrg, RFC's, etc)

- should a person be able to get a basic idea of what the attribute 
means by looking at the attribute name (and, by implication, without 
having to look at a registry document)

- should we use the Registry as a level of indirection, insulating 
the SAML attribute names from the definitions the Federation has 
chosen to use at this point  in time.....

Anything else outstanding at this point?

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design-+
For list utilities, archives, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. please visit the
ListProc web interface at 

   http://archives.internet2.edu/

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design--