Shibboleth Developers

[Alistair Young <>]

Should the emphasis, if any is required, not be on "as-is" transport of 
unambiguous attributes? There lies the strength of the OID, however 
unfriendly it really is.

SAML2 contains a multitude of profiles so I'd see it in terms of web 
service endpoints that support multiple SAML profiles, rather than 
encoding profile information in the attributes themselves via a URN 
that seems to be a profile identifier.

Alistair


On 19 Apr 2005, at 14:55, Tom Scavo wrote:

> On 4/18/05, Scott Cantor 
> <>
>  wrote:
> > eduPersonTargetedID is a problem for both profiles, and my proposal 
> > needs
> > debate, particularly whether to start supporting a "new" syntax in 
> > the 1.x
> > profile or just leave it imperfect and wait for 2.0. This depends to 
> > some
> > extent on expected volume of use. But we need to decide quickly if a 
> > new
> > syntax is to be supported in Shibboleth 1.3.
>
> My gut feeling is that nothing new should be introduced at this time.
> Persistent identifiers abound in SAML2 so it seems best to wait and
> see how that shakes out.
>
> Attached are some notes and errata for the document posted yesterday.
> On the one hand, I appreciate the fact that two profiles were provided
> back-to-back, but after a bit of reading it became clear that the two
> have difficulty coexisting in the same document.
>
> Tom
> <eduperson-comments-2005-04-18.txt>