CAS Protocol Milestone

[Ian Young]

On 15 Aug 2014, at 18:26, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

> Today, we consider any SAML message issued by an SP we don't have metadata
> for to be "anonymous, and the SelectRelyingPartyConfiguration step assigns
> the Anonymous relying party configuration object. The term is confusing
> because what we really mean is "unverified", not anonymous. There aren't
> any SAML profiles in general that are really anonymous, and I think if you
> assume the CAS client URL is the identity, then clearly CAS isn't either.

I think I know what the answer is to this question, but as it hasn't been asked yet I feel compelled to bring it up:

I know that there's a ton of history and therefore inertia here, but on the basis that there will always be new people being confused by this, should we consider actually adopting a new term (straw man: "unverified") and phasing out the use of "anonymous" ?

	-- Ian "someone has to ask these questions"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5943 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20140819/b3deb743/attachment.bin