Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Authorization Data Framework?

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:28:21 -0800

Is there interest in creating an Authorization Data Framework  
specification sort of along the lines of the pre-auth framework spec?

The discussions on the KAML list, when they were happening, did not  
indicate a clear consensus that SAML, vice ASN1, vice Microsoft PAC- 
like data structures were appropriate.  The nature of the  
authorization data itself seemed likewise seemed disjoint, and  
different infrastructures seemed to have different needs.

I believe in order to progress in this area that a framework document  
might be useful.  It should specify how the three representation  
formats can coexist, and how their contents should/must be  
coordinated when more than one exists.  There is probably opportunity  
for specifying *something* about what authorization information make  
sense and how to represent it meaningfully.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:05:23 +0100

> different infrastructures seemed to have different needs.

I don't agree. I think it was mostly a question of me not having a prepared 
problem statement draft (which I'm trying to address together with Josh 
Howlet) before setting up the group. My bad.

The problem with the discussion was that in the absence of a problem statement 
we got bogged down in a discussion about particulars instead of focusing on 
the larger issues.

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:05:23 +0100

Cheers Leif

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:07:44 -0700

> we got bogged down in a discussion about particulars instead of  

OK.  Absent any other feedback, I'll look forward to a problem  
statement.  ;-)

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:07:44 -0700