SAML/SAMLP vs SAML2/SAMLP2 in assertions
jeffmc at berkeley.edu
Sat Jan 28 00:59:29 GMT 2012
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?
>> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
> Chad La Joie
> trusted identities, delivered
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
More information about the users