shibboleth-dev - Re: CryptoHandleGenerator

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: CryptoHandleGenerator

From: Tom Scavo <>
To: Scott Cantor <>
Cc: Shibboleth Development <>
Subject: Re: CryptoHandleGenerator
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:13:37 -0500
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=IqmRbQ2ZoNIHDne6rii6L8q9eruc/flOBrfIyhF7cgE8GavJD7A2nqzIdX8xlM1O4PnWfi/VtQT5wN5WzJdaVMjHduDIo5GXnCwS5uhKSCslQ9m1RAucI/bIisa6t+A+RfK2TQJ5/ox43yOgkxuYuElV3WxBIz+aPUis0Qjx3ow=

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:42 -0500, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
> > What about the other SAML formats (unspecified, emailAddress, and
> > WindowsDomainQualifiedName)? Won't these have the same problem as
> > X509SubjectName?
>
> I guess they would if anybody was using them. I just agree with Walter,
> there isn't any real difference between writing your own and chaining them
> together, especially if you have to write one of the links in the chain
> anyway.

We don't mind taking ownership of this problem, but NameMapper doesn't
allow two NameMapping elements with the same format, so there's not
much we can do at the plugin level.

Tom

RE: CryptoHandleGenerator, (continued)

List archive

Re: CryptoHandleGenerator