[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Comments onsstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-11
Thanks, you're right. ::Ari > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:03 PM > To: Ari Kermaier; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [security-services] Comments on > sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-11 > > > Looking at section 3.3.4 of SAML2 core: > > "If the SAML authority cannot provide an assertion with any statements > satisfying the constraints expressed by a query or assertion > reference, the > <Response> element MUST NOT contain an <Assertion> element > and MUST include > a <StatusCode> element with the value > urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success". > > Doesn't that apply in this case? If you have no attributes to > return then > you have no AttributeStatement, and so you would omit the > Assertion (rather > than including an empty Assertion). > > -Greg > > On 2/14/07 10:29 AM, "Ari Kermaier" <ari.kermaier@oracle.com> wrote: > > > I suppose it's bad form to upload a draft and then post > comments on it myself > > the next day, but I noticed something that might bear discussion and > > modification. > > > > The X.509 attribute sharing profile discusses requirements > for a successful > > samlp:Response to the samlp:AttributeQuery, and defines > behavior w.r.t. > > presence/number of saml:Assertion and > saml:AttributeStatement elements. > > > > In both sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-cd-02 [lines > 174-176] and > > sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-10 [lines > 184-186], it requires a > > successful Response to have exactly 1 Assertion, and exactly 1 > > AttributeStatement. > > > > Mailing list and meeting discussion threads arrived at the > conclusion that > > there was no need to restrict a Response from carrying > multiple Assertion > > and/or AttributeStatement elements. Thus, I modified the language in > > sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-draft-11 [lines > 185-186] to read: > > > > "Any <Assertion> element(s) MUST satisfy the following conditions: > > The <Assertion> element MUST contain at least one > <AttributeStatement> element > > that conveys the attributes of the principal to the service > provider." > > > > Thinking about implementation, however, caused me to have > second thoughts > > about this language: > > > > Since the [SAMLCore] schema requires at least 1 Attribute > element in an > > AttributeStatement, a response in which none of the > requested user attributes > > could be returned (e.g., the attributes do not exist) could > not have an empty > > AttributeStatement. This means that, according to either > the new or old > > language, the Response could not contain an Assertion with no > > AttributeStatement; the new language provides the ability > to omit the > > Assertion entirely in this case. > > > > But is this the best behavior? The case of no Attributes to > return might be > > better handled by returning a Response containing an > Assertion (with the > > correct Subject) but with no AttributeStatement. Maybe the > new language should > > be changed to require 1 or more Assertions in a successful > response, but allow > > 0 or more AttributeStatements. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Ari Kermaier > > Oracle > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]