Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - RE: Comments on the new configuration

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

RE: Comments on the new configuration


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Scott Cantor" <>
  • To: "'Tom Scavo'" <>
  • Cc: "'Howard Gilbert'" <>, <>
  • Subject: RE: Comments on the new configuration
  • Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:27:33 -0400
  • Organization: The Ohio State University

> Because as you said, the IdP and SP share metadata with each
> other, so why wouldn't the IdP's metadata be in one file and
> the SP's metadata be in another. It reinforces the idea that
> metadata files are swapped and that an entity need not
> consume its own metadata.

Alright. Needless to say, all of this is post-beta. I can't screw with
things this much right now.

> No, but your inline comment says a single descriptor can be
> used for both yet it's not clear how to do that.

You don't have to do anything, it just is. I thought that's what it said.

> Moreover, is it required to duplicate in metadata the KeyInfo that is
> already in the signature itself? I assume it is but that too
> had me spinning my wheels for a long time.

A KeyInfo in a signature is self-asserted. It's worthless unless you have a
trust anchor to compare it with. Including it is just common practice in the
PKI world, but it's mostly worthless.

-- Scott




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page