Folks, please indicate support for text to send to W3C --- RE: W3C WG vs SAML ?? Fwd: [security-services] Official statement to W3C WG about impact on SAML?

[Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>]

Folks, 

Per our SSTC meeting today, please indicate support for the text below to send to W3C.


--thomas





________________________________________
From: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org [security-services@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Thomas Hardjono [hardjono@mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:47 PM
To: cantor.2@osu.edu; âSAML âTC â
Subject: [security-services] RE: W3C WG vs SAML ?? Fwd: [security-services] Official statement to W3C WG about impact on SAML?

+1  Looks good. Thanks Scott.


________________________________________
From: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org [security-services@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Cantor, Scott [cantor.2@osu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:33 PM
To: âSAML âTC â
Subject: [security-services] Re: W3C WG vs SAML ?? Fwd: [security-services] Official statement to W3C WG about impact on SAML?

I took an action to craft a few sentences for this that might work as a TC statement to "somebody" at the W3C. This is a little longer than I was hoping, but maybe at least a starting point.

-- Scott

The Security Services TC, responsible for the SAML 2.0 standard, has been made aware of various Browser API proposals being discussed by the Privacy and Federated Identity Community Groups that would have a substantial impact on the deployed base of SAML around the world.

We would urge the W3C to take into consideration the potential for disruption if the final form of these proposals results in incompatibilities requiring updated standards and/or software by all existing deployments of the SAML standard.

The development of new standards, and the deployment of new software by so many, is an undertaking that will likely take a number of years, and we urge this be taken into account, should these proposals reach the status of W3C Recommendations.