SAML2 attribute names breaking standards

[Wessel, Keith]

Hi, all,

We've got a vendor who wants their own custom attribute released instead of eppn for reasons I need not get into. I asked for an OID, and they didn't have one. Turns out, after I configured everything, there's a reason they didn't have an OID. They want the name, not the friendly name, of the attribute to be their own string representing the attribute name. Instead of urn:oid:x.x.x, they require the attribute name to be vendor_external_id.

I'm sure this breaks some accepted standards out there. Other than that, is there a technical reason I shouldn't do this?

Thanks,
Keith