mace-opensaml-users - Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback
Subject: OpenSAML user discussion
List archive
- From: "Tom Scavo" <>
- To: "Scott Cantor" <>
- Cc: "Chad La Joie" <>,
- Subject: Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:01:19 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YkeMaMFQP7cOCkiR+yZ1bczxqxwihIfxeI2jNk+PDq68m4AhHjaUh+QBYX+3IcIU2rT70JaBMfpBu/sg128e2g6oJaRQRjLxZoLkC3rFPsGNBV5Rl9vlarMw0vATfZ1em2paP9IZqhmyWKjY+auEL10WbgGgtOT2ZZQbGW90miY=
On 3/2/06, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
> > What about attribute query (apart from SSO)? A lot of folks (besides
> > ourselves) are trying to leverage this in Shib 1.3. Will this be
> > supported in Shib 2.0?
>
> Shibboleth 2.0 is still a SSO system. If it wasn't for the fact that it's
> simple to maintain due to the old logic, I wouldn't even bother doing SAML
> 2.0 queries in the Shibboleth SP, because it serves no purpose now.
Hmm, let me see if I understand what you're saying. Since both
Browser/POST and Browser/Artifact can use attribute push, attribute
queries (pull) are unnecessary. Is that what you mean?
> Beyond that, I really don't know what it means to "support" it other than
> exposing the components that make up a SAML query runtime, which the code
> does now, at least in C++.
Are you talking about OpenSAML or the Shib SP?
Tom
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, (continued)
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/02/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/03/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/02/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
- RE: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Scott Cantor, 03/06/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/06/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tim Freeman, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/05/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Chad La Joie, 03/02/2006
- Re: 2.0 Status Update & Request for Feedback, Tom Scavo, 03/02/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.