|
|
|
Andreas Savva: 06/30/2008 10:48 PM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Assigned category due to minor expected tweaks as a result of the experience document
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Category set to Version 1.0
|
|
|
Andreas Savva: 06/10/2005 1:50 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Confirmed in v017 (gridforge draft 11) that this text is present in section 8.1.7.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Andreas Savva: 06/10/2005 1:50 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Fixed to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-06-10 15:50:37
|
|
|
Tom Maguire: 06/06/2005 4:09 PM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
fixed v015
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Tom Maguire: 06/06/2005 4:09 PM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Resolved to Fixed
|
|
|
David Snelling: 05/23/2005 9:37 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Include text as recommended by Takuya Mori.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
David Snelling: 05/23/2005 9:37 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Pending to Resolved
assigned_to changed from 100 to 191
|
|
|
David Snelling: 05/23/2005 5:17 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
From: Takuya Mori
Hi All,
This message is intended to start the discussion on the WSRF-BP
Tracker Item #1323 (and hopefully to close it).
TI#1323
Summary: Communication of assertions
Description: Profiles for common assertions in headers or Proxy Certificate
I'd like to propose to add the following to the WSRF Basic Profile 1.0
----
8.1.x or 8.x Communications of assertions
Senders MAY send assertions that can be used for policy decisions
including access control decision by receivers with SOAP messages.
The assertions MUST be SAML assertions or X509 attribute
certificates and senders and receivers MUST adhere to the Basic
SEcurity Profile or SAML Token Profile Version 1.0 when sending
assertions.
R08xx When communicating SAML assertions, a SENDER and a RECEIVER
MUST comply with SAML Token Profile Version 1.0
R08xx When communicating X509 attribute certificates, a SENDER and
a RECEIVERMUST comply with the Basec Security Profile
Version 1.0 Section 5.
----
Here is some background on my proposal.
I think's it is better not to use proxy certificate as a mean for
communication of assertions, because there is no standardized way of
embedding assertions in X509 certificates as certificate extentions,
thus, developing such a standard would be too costly.
----
Takuya Mori
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Tom Maguire: 04/20/2005 2:55 PM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
ongoing discussion within Globus wrt assertions in headers or proxy certs. This has a dependency to the proxy cert usage from 1322
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Tom Maguire: 03/14/2005 3:30 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Pending
|
|
|
|
