Re: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spec?
Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Wed, 16 January 2013 21:40 UTC
Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32D611E80FD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:40:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8dpW9INp-Jv for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (smtprelay05.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902A711E80E6 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [79.253.28.41] (helo=[192.168.71.56]) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1TvaiN-0008Sp-OR; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:40:07 +0100
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366A4AFE4@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E0687A994@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E0687A994@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-DDC8A999-66E2-45E9-9D2F-13D0B8BC2714"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <73F55F17-6FB0-4BD5-8660-393178C6060F@lodderstedt.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A523)
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:40:08 +0100
To: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU=
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spec?
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:40:13 -0000
+1 makes sense Am 16.01.2013 um 21:07 schrieb "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>: > +1, it's a non-normative terminology change that aligns it with related efforts. It should be a simple text replace operation. > > -- Justin > > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [oauth-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Mike Jones [Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:51 PM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spec? > > In writing the proposed interoperability text for the Assertions specification, I noticed that the Assertions spec uses the term “Principal” to refer to the subject of the assertion, whereas both the SAML and JWT profiles use the term “Subject” for this same concept. I propose that at the same time we add the Interoperability statement, we also change the uses of the term “Principal” to “Subject” in the assertions spec so that it’s terminology usage is more consistent with the two profile specs using it. > > Thoughts? > > -- Mike > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spe… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions… Torsten Lodderstedt