On 24-Jan-06, at 9:47 AM, Tom Doman wrote:
Replying to myself here ... I'll have to reread the charter and get
deeper into the draft but, perhaps the intent here is not to worry
about the data model, just how to pass "whatever it is" around.
Theoretically, DIX could be SAML-compliant, if passed the correct
"whatever it is" around.
--
Boris Mann
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/24/2006 10:23:03 am >>>
Yes, Leslie, taking your thought further, it makes me wonder, how
does the DIX protocol end up being much different from SAML? Dick,
I know you like to discount SAML due to RSA licensing issues (which
is a very relevant point), but I'd like to have you weigh in on the
other material differences you might anticipate in the DIX protocol
itself. In other words, where else do you think SAML is lacking or
perhaps inappropriate for digital identity information exchange?
Regards,
Tom
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/20/2006 12:18:40 pm >>>
It is clearer, but I think the charter still needs to be
clearer about what is meant by "digital identity". Is
the purpose to be able to access *any* stored data about
a person, or *specific* stored data?
In many regards, saying "any" is easier; sort out the format
for expressing attribute/values, and you're done. However,
then there are issues of interoperability (is there a minimum
set of identity data that is mandatory to provide?).
And, if it is "any", then how is this not a directory service
with additional labelling (addresses/names/identifiers) on top?
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
