Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ) id 1TvaiN-0008Sp-OR; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:40:07 +0100 References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366A4AFE4@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: 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 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:40:08 +0100 To: "Richer, Justin P." X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU= Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:40:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail-DDC8A999-66E2-45E9-9D2F-13D0B8BC2714 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 makes sense Am 16.01.2013 um 21:07 schrieb "Richer, Justin P." : > +1, it's a non-normative terminology change that aligns it with related ef= forts. It should be a simple text replace operation. >=20 > -- Justin >=20 > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [oauth-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Mike Jo= nes [Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:51 PM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spec? >=20 > In writing the proposed interoperability text for the Assertions specifica= tion, I noticed that the Assertions spec uses the term =E2=80=9CPrincipal=E2= =80=9D to refer to the subject of the assertion, whereas both the SAML and J= WT profiles use the term =E2=80=9CSubject=E2=80=9D for this same concept. I= propose that at the same time we add the Interoperability statement, we als= o change the uses of the term =E2=80=9CPrincipal=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9CSubjec= t=E2=80=9D in the assertions spec so that it=E2=80=99s terminology usage is m= ore consistent with the two profile specs using it. > =20 > Thoughts? > =20 > -- Mike > =20 > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth --Apple-Mail-DDC8A999-66E2-45E9-9D2F-13D0B8BC2714 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+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 relate= d efforts. It should be a simple text replace operation.

 -- Justin

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [o= auth-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 =E2= =80=9CPrincipal=E2=80=9D to refer to the subject of the assertion, whereas b= oth the SAML and JWT profiles use the term =E2=80=9CSubject=E2=80=9D for this same concept.  I propose that at the same time we add the Int= eroperability statement, we also change the uses of the term =E2=80=9CPrinci= pal=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9CSubject=E2=80=9D in the assertions spec so that it=E2= =80=99s terminology usage is more consistent with the two profile specs using it.

 

Thoughts?

 

         = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;    -- Mike

 

____________________= ___________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/oauth
= --Apple-Mail-DDC8A999-66E2-45E9-9D2F-13D0B8BC2714--