Subject: RE: [dix] So what went wrong?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:00:22 -0800

> From: Leif Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Ahem, well, more like beeing in the room trying to sell LDAP to X.500.

Good analogy. 

I would like to emphasize the point here that regardless of whether people
feel X.500 did it right or not there is no likelihood that particular
protocol would ever have made it on its own.

I don't think we are in that exact situation with SAML. But I think that a
well defined SAML subset, possibly using a non-XML syntax but building on
the existing SAML nomenclature could help catalyze deployment of a
ubiquitous infrastructure.

Some parts of DIX are clearly better than SAML, the use of the term 'claim'
as opposed to 'statement', the distinction between assertions and statements
always worried me in SAML as being entirely conventional and thus possibly
confusing. Unfortunately that is probably one of the decisions it would
probably be better to not revisit as introducing a new term at this time
might introduce even more confusion.
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix