[Concordia] Organizing use cases

[Eve L. Maler]

Eric Norman wrote:
> Here's one suggestion that might help organize it better.  Each
> row represents a protocol that needs to make adjustments to communicate
> with the protocols along the columns.  The columns represent protocols
> that can be used as is.
> 
> For example, look at the OpenID/SAML case.  The first two clauses 
> (OpenID
> makes SAML assertions and uses SAML authentication context would belong
> in row OpenID, column SAML (where they are now).  The third clause seems
> to call for an adjustment to SAML deployments, hence would be in row 
> SAML,
> column OpenID.

Y'know, I honestly hadn't gotten as far as realizing that I didn't 
really need one whole triangle of this thing. That's sad. :-) 
(Luckily, I'm on vacation and offline all next week!  Hopefully that 
will cure me.)

Your suggestion is very interesting.  I'm a little worried, though, 
that it will pre-judge technical solutions.  I had intended to list 
them without consideration of "who has to change", especially when 
we don't have a lot of detail on the use cases yet.

For example, "SAML attribute assertions in OpenID" could involve a 
combo effort: someone doing an OpenID extension that allows for SAML 
content to come along for the ride, and someone doing a SAML 
attribute profile intended for use with the extension.  Or maybe the 
whole thing gets rolled together in a single spec, done in the IETF. 
  Should that go in horiz OpenID/vert SAML, or vert OpenID/horiz 
SAML, or a third dimension entirely?

Maybe I can cut off a corner of the matrix for now, effectively 
uniq'ing the cells, and when we get a better understanding how 
things are falling out, we can get more sophisticated.  What do you 
think?

	Eve
-- 
Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
Technology Director                           eve.maler @ sun.com
CTO Business Alliances group                Sun Microsystems, Inc.