[higgins-dev] Re: Redirecting Bandit STS efforts to Higgins

["Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We should definitely bring this scenario up with our contacts at Microsoft.  However, regardless of their stance, I would agree that it doesn't seem like we should let their lack of planning for this use case, restrict our architecting a method that would accommodate this more than reasonable scenario.  If we're supporting CardSpace on non-Windows platforms, there, we can do CardSpace even better than they do, correct?

Tom

>>> "Daniel Sanders" <dsanders@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/23/07 9:20 AM >>>
Mike,
 
I should have also replied about the following:
 
I also am waiting for the change to the IdAS described here: 
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01601.html 

This is the request that we allow managedCardID+PersonalCardPPID+modulus+exponent to be the auth material for a self-issued token.  I had some reservations, which I expressed in followup e-mails.  My 2nd-to-last email asked whether you meant managedCardID or managedCardPPID, and I pointed out problems with managedCardPPID. ... I guess I just wanted clarification that you really meant managedCardID, not managedCardPPID. ... I was under the impression that we still needed to have everyone accept the proposed idea.  I'm not sure where Jim and Tom are on the idea -- I will discuss it with them today to see what they think.  As I recall, they didn't chime in on the thread.
 
Daniel
 

>>> "Daniel Sanders" <dsanders@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/23/2007 8:38 AM >>>
Thanks Mike. -- I did have a followup question on #2 (PPID claim handling).  This should be independent of SAML provider, so I'm not sure what you mean here.  All providers should do it this way, should they not?  Am I misunderstanding what you mean by SAML provider?  Could you clarify this?
 
I am also putting this particular e-mail out on the dev list - minus the other discussion about contributing to the STS.
 
Thanks,
 
Daniel

>>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/23/2007 8:22 AM >>>
"Daniel Sanders" <dsanders@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/22/2007 03:45:49 PM:

> The term "fully implemented" implies a lot more than you are 
> allowing for.  It includes major and minor bug fixes, reliability 
> fixes, scalability fixes, etc., etc.  It's stuff that benefits ALL 
> users of the STS.  There is a lot of stuff in the STS that people 
> are VERY interested in, that ought to be in the STS, that is not 
> going to be specified in a high-level WS-Trust document.  We need to
> collaborate about these things, including submitting patches and/or 
> committing changes, bug fixes, etc. directly.  We would like to be 
> able to help with these things.  We would like a task list or to-do 
> list that everyone can help out with - as is common with most other 
> open source projects.
> 
> Examples of things that have recently been requested are as follows:
> 
> 1) Some restructuring of the code modules.  See my e-mail, and 
> Mike's response - both out on the higgins-dev list if you are watching 
it: 
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01607.html 

Allow 1 STS Core to be used by N STS Bindings - this is checked in today 
(you can now pass a configured STS instance into the binding configure 
method and get the configured STS instance from a binding).

> 2) A change in how PPID claims are handled.  See http://wiki. ( http://wiki./ )
> eclipse.org/index.php/Milestone_0.7 under the heading "IIW Reference
> Application Post Mortem"

PPID handling - this has been how the SAML provider works since the F2F.

> 1. The STS needs to give special handling to the 
> privatepersonalidentifier claim. The document, A Guide to 
> Integrating with Information Cards and Windows CardSpace v1.0, says 
> the following: "To enable an identity provider that supports the 
> PPID claim type to be able to always produce a consistent claim 
> value, Windows CardSpace includes the extension element ic:
> ClientPseudonym/ic:PPID in the RST request. It contains the result 
> of applying a hash function to a relying party identity and optional
> user-supplied entropy to produce an opaque yet consistent reference 
> for the relying party. If the issued token contains the PPID claim, 
> this value is to be used as the basis. The IP/STS may use this value
> as is or as an input seed to a custom function to derive a value for
> the PPID claim." The STS should look for this ClientPseudonym/PPID 
> element whenever the RST requests the personalprivateidentifier 
> claim, and at the very least, return that value for the claim. 
> 3) A change in how the STS determines what claims to ask for from IdAS. 
See: 
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01541.html.

Ask for specific claims when calling getDigitalSubject - this is checked 
in today (I still feel that this is an LDAPism and would like to discuss 
whether getDigitalSubject is expected to provide dynamic read-write access 
via an to the DigitalSubject or whether its expected to provide a static 
cached copy of the Digital Subject.
> 
> Mike may have already worked on some of these, perhaps all of them. 
> I haven't checked for the past few days.  I am just showing you that
> there are things that need tweeking, adjusting, refactoring, etc. - 
> that have little or nothing to do with the high-level WS-Trust 
> architecture.  These kinds of requests come up somewhat regularly, 
> and we anticipate that more will happen.

I also am waiting for the change to the IdAS described here: 
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01601.html 

> Daniel Sanders
 
<snip rest of discussion...>