SAML2 attribute names breaking standards

[Wessel, Keith]

Good point. Not that I anticipate them budging on any of this, anyway... but I'll try and lead them toward the proper solution.

They claim that they eventually plan to let clients choose what attribute they want to assert for an external ID. That would, of course, free things up for eppn. For now, this is just going to be a band aid, and I'm trying to make it as clean as possible.

We'll avoid friendly name, though, if we can.

Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at shibboleth.net [mailto:users-bounces at shibboleth.net] On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:10 AM
To: Shib Users
Subject: Re: SAML2 attribute names breaking standards

On 11/22/13, 12:05 PM, "Wessel, Keith" <kwessel at illinois.edu> wrote:

>Thanks, Scott and Nate, for confirming my suspicions on this.
>
>I've told the vendor no and asked them to change their approach, at 
>least paying attention to the friendly name if nothing else. I'm not 
>holding my breath, but we'll see what comes of it.

I would not advocate that you get them looking at FriendlyName, that has a purely debugging non-normative function in SAML.

Of the options, using a custom Name is better than that one.

-- Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net