IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: review of draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml-00

"Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu> Wed, 26 May 2010 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
X-Original-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CEC3A66B4 for <kitten@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2010 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hQpz+ipuK9jD for <kitten@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2010 08:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com (hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com [71.74.56.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7423A67DB for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 May 2010 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=muTmBHIsIIrvj5np50lvqqEF3x9MmSj/zDSU9q1ni6E= c=1 sm=0 a=FNPjm8h7-gQA:10 a=0qYQvVkOOIcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=/Wh0N9815gtYTLoiNwER9g==:17 a=7xHUJE1NU49kgWwFEnEA:9 a=ej963Yy3zctA84nWFcwtFIR99AoA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=/Wh0N9815gtYTLoiNwER9g==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 24.210.116.83
Received: from [24.210.116.83] ([24.210.116.83:29913] helo=SNOWDOG) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from <cantor.2@osu.edu>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id AA/15-22658-8644DFB4; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:55:20 +0000
From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
To: 'Klaas Wierenga' <klaas@cisco.com>
References: <tslzkzn67n5.fsf@mit.edu> <077001cafc4b$603f0510$20bd0f30$@osu.edu> <4BFD2ECE.5020600@cisco.com> <07e801cafce5$4cf7f7b0$e6e7e710$@osu.edu> <4BFD414A.7070002@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BFD414A.7070002@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: review of draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml-00
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:55:21 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University
Message-ID: <07f301cafceb$d9244f30$8b6ced90$@osu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLRbl7pt5nj/GkkimyEmmW8RXcC0wEhdeLrAhdHfmYCs1lfWwKr/Y2zkBI5PBA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, moonshot-community@jiscmail.ac.uk, 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:55:32 -0000

> right, but that than comes at the expense of more complex SASL
> interaction, i.e. you are going to send the AuthenticationStatement as a
> response to the AuthentionRequest challenge over SASL, right?

It's a SAML Response (the statement is well buried), but why is that more
complex than an empty response, running a web server to handle a SSO
response, and then making a callback?

I think it's a much simpler flow. Request, Response.

I'm coming at this with probably insufficient SASL knowledge, though I'm
trying to rectify that. Maybe I'm missing something.

-- Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email