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

	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

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

Attachment: smime.p7s