Re: [KAML] Reminder: BOF proposals to me by October 1

Not yet in a position to evaluate any proposal against possible real  
usage.  Please post times for IETF discussions, though.

On Sep 27, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Paul Rabinovich wrote:

>
> 	Leif,
>
> 	Based on your feedback I'll hold off sending my proposal as an I-D.
>
> 	Regards,
> 	PR
>
> Paul Rabinovich | Software Architect | EXOSTAR LLC
> 13530 Dulles Technology Dr., Suite 200, Herndon, VA 20171
>
> PH +1.703.793.7808 | FAX +1.703.793.7741
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Scavo [mailto:trscavo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:53 PM
> To: Leif Johansson
> Cc: Paul Rabinovich; kaml@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [KAML] Reminder: BOF proposals to me by October 1
>
> On 9/25/07, Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se> wrote:
>> Paul Rabinovich wrote:
>>>
>>>       IMO it's preferable to keep the LoA piece under the  
>>> Kerberos WG
>>> rather than under the KAML WG since - in the short-term - out-of- 
>>> the-box
>>> SAML 2.0 seems not to be able to help with LoA. Whatever we design,
> however,
>>>
>> I think you are wrong. There are at least two ways to model LoA
>> using SAML - using an AC class or using an attribute.
>
> That's correct.  If you decide to use AuthnContext, that means the
> Kerberos-bound SAML assertion would contain an AuthnStatement.  On the
> other hand, an Attribute would require an AttributeStatement.
> (Personally, I think AuthnContext is the way to go for LoA, but the
> jury's still out on that issue.)
>
> Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu

_______________________________________________
KAML mailing list
KAML@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kaml