Shibboleth Developers

[Steven Carmody <>]

On 4/6/11 7:51 PM, Cantor, Scott E. wrote:
> Well, I don't think "not follow the standard" is an appropriate strategy,
> as I said in the private thread you're talking about.

you convinced me of that in the other thread.  ;-)

> In that light, using
> isRequired in any sensible way with both uApprove and the proposed v3
> implementation is a non-starter, and will both not be useful and will
> prevent attribute flexibility in terms of SAML versions and specific
> attribute variants (displayName vs. cn).

I think people are used to regularly encountering situations in everyday 
life that present "some things are required and some things are 
optional". Its a straightforward concept, easy to understand. Being able 
to leverage that would require little additional user training. 
Presumably that's why it was included in the SAML metadata standard.

What's harder to understand is why the consent process is encountering 
problems with that model. I was suggesting that some discussion of the 
issues in this space might be useful.