Hi,

Lets take into  account  that SAML signature means that the idp does assert the 
attributes  belongs to a user (subject). Radsec signature means you are 
authenticating a party, the idp. So it should be clearly specified  when we can 
make use of one or another .

Beside, does it mean we finnaly needs a public key infrastructure?


Enviado desde Samsung tabletLeif Johansson <[email protected]> escribió:On 
11/08/2012 09:49 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johansson <[email protected]> writes:
>     Leif> On 11/08/2012 09:39 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>     >> 
>> Klaas> Also speaking as an individual. I do support the idea of
>     Klaas> using RadSec. However, I think that one reason why one would
>     Klaas> be willing to support SAML sigs is the simple fact that they
>     Klaas> exist today and presumably organizations might be willing to
>     Klaas> continu to use their existing practice for end to end
>     Klaas> protection. I realize that in some scenarios it will be
>     Klaas> impossible for the RP to verify the signature, but I'd say
>     Klaas> that in the majority of cases this is not more of a problem
>     Klaas> than it would be in RadSec (barring trust router
>     Klaas> implementations).
>     >> 
>     >> Sure, and for that reason, I think SAML sig validation
>     >> implementation should be a SHOULD.  But I think for an MTI
>     >> mechansim we should pick something that actually protects the
>     >> whole exchange.
>     Leif> Still with no hat on whatsoever...
>
>     Leif> You seem to be assuming a situation where attributes are
>     Leif> sometimes sent as AAA-attributes and sometimes as
>     Leif> SAML-attributes.
>
> no, I'm assuming that deployments have the flexibility as to whether to
> use AAA attributes or SAML attributes.
> Some of the use cases I'm looking at involve no SAML at all; some
> involve using SAML for everything.
>
> Having multiple ways to convey attributes was a fairly explicit decision
> here. It's true that it means attribute-container-specific security
> mechanisms lose value.
OK, then we're on the same page. Thx.
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

Reply via email to