Shibboleth Developers

[Tom Scavo <>]

Okay, I stand corrected.  On paper it doesn't look significant.  Oh well...


On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:28:46 -0500, Scott Cantor 
<>
 wrote:
> > Right, so the E-Auth SAML 1.0 standard doesn't have much meaning.  For
> > all practical purposes, the base standard is SAML 1.1.
> 
> No, it's 1.0.
> 
> 1.1 is in no way wire compatible if you validate, thus the source of much
> pain for us until Walter's filter idea solved the problem for unsigned
> content anyway. The reengineering to support both at once was not
> attractive.
> 
> > > and as far as I know there
> > > is no installed base of fed e-auth sites to be interoperable with ...
> >
> > But there will be...
> 
> Running 1.0? Maybe, but I doubt it.
> 
> > True, but as far as I can tell there is only one significant change
> > moving from 1.0 to 1.1 (caching) and it's an addition to 1.1.  Most of
> > the remaining differences are deprecated elements and such.  Really
> > quite minor.
> 
> Nope, the ID attributes completely changed and a 1.0 document isn't valid
> anymore. The incompatibility was a major problem, and in retrospect, we
> shouldn't have done it, IMHO.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
>