PrincipalName as NameID?

[Byte Flinger]

I'd like to thank you all for the help. The issue was just that,
transientId was the needed format ti make it work.

I still don't quite understand how the google example is supposed to work
given the fact that it uses unspecified and we're "not supposed to use
that" but I am leaving it at that.

Thanks
On Jun 25, 2013 6:45 PM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

> On 6/25/13 12:26 PM, "Byte Flinger" <byteflinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >If I understand correctly from the documentation, nameID definitions on
> >the SP or IDP metadata are just for info and don't really make a
> >difference is that correct?
>
> No. The wiki describes the NameID format selection process, and both of
> the metadata instances can impact that. Neither is strictly normative or
> impossible to ignore, but they can affect the outcome.
>
> >So basically what you guys are saying is that other than the use of
> >unspecified instead of transient or persistent, what I am doing is
> >correct?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> >Lastly, if one should not use unspecified then how does one get an
> >unspecified NameID like in the google example from the wiki, or is that
> >example just plain wrong?
>
> Google uses unspecified, that just doesn't happen to be sensible.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20130627/38260f95/attachment.html