Shibboleth Developers

[Nate Klingenstein <>]

So this sounds like we'd like to place both installation methods(bilateral communication with test providers, and bilateral communication between your IdP/SP pair) on equal footing, but make sure that the test IdP and test SP are available without joining a federation?  If I've interpreted you correctly, I'd support that approach.  Depending on how we implement it, different misconfigurations may be hidden by use of that sort of test provider as well, e.g. a bogus providerId.  It'd be a good way to prevent something like InQueue from happening again, and I'm always in favor of iterative processes that limit the number of possible problems at any point along the way.

I'm just reluctant to see the default become the self-contained bilateral installation, as I think the categories of people you note below capture a significant portion of the people using our installation documentation.

On Mar 10, 2006, at 6:33, Jim Fox wrote:

Providing a test IdP and SP is certainly invaluable for new adopters, especially

those not implementing both IdP and SP. But allowing those test sites to use bilateral trust arrangements does not seem so difficult.