Shibboleth Developers

[Chad La Joie <>]

On 4/4/11 2:54 PM, Tom Scavo wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Chad La Joie 
> <>
>  wrote:
>> What are you hoping to get out of such a discussion?  What are you
>> hoping the audience (which are usually general deployers not developers)
>> will get out of it?
> 
> Well, since the project isn't going to address this topic until IdP
> v3.0 way down the road, deployers might like to know that 1) there's a
> contributed login handler that uses OTP technologies X and protocols
> Y, 2) there's a project at Surfnet that uses the same protocols as the
> contributed handler, and 3) Google 2-factor authn uses the same
> protocols as well. So there's a lot of synergy going on in this space
> right now.

I'm not arguing that (1) is interesting.  I've encouraged Fredrik a
couple times to bring it up (and he has) and pointed out the login
handler when people ask about OTP.  The very tepid response we've seen
makes me think that most people don't much care.

As far as (2) and (3), they seem mostly irrelevant to me.  When it comes
to adding stuff to the software we try pretty hard to strictly focus on
technical merit.  So while it's nice knowing other folks happen to agree
with us (or we with them, depending on how you want to view it), that
doesn't really speak to technical merit.

> But now that you mention it, you're probably right, the WG session is
> probably not the place to discuss this. You probably already have a
> full agenda of more relevant topics.

I wasn't saying we couldn't accept topics.  I'm just asking what you
believe the audience we would get from that discussion.  That's the
question we always ask before adding any topic to the agenda.

-- 
Chad La Joie
http://itumi.biz
trusted identities, delivered