SAML/SAMLP vs SAML2/SAMLP2 in assertions

[Jeff McCullough]

Thanks. It would appear they took the naming convention a bit too literally. I'm sure I have a fun conversation ahead. -Jeff

On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Chad La Joie wrote:

> No.  Their app is broken.  They clearly have no idea what an XML
> namespace is.  Those prefixes are meaningless except to the extent
> that they must match the prefix given when the namespace is declared.
> You could (and some products do) generate random prefixes and that's
> perfectly legal.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 19:07, Jeff McCullough <jeffmc at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Quick question...
>> 
>> I've encountered a vendor, Catertrax, that will only accept SAML/SAMLP for version 1.1 and 2.0 assertions. The Shibboleth IdP sends SAML2/SAMLP2 for SAML 2.0 assertions. The vendor sent me a bunch of links proving their point, but I know you all worked on the spec. What gives? Is there a way in the Shib IdP to specify SAML vs SAML2 assertions for a relying-party?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chad La Joie
> www.itumi.biz
> trusted identities, delivered
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net