SAML attribute naming

[Cantor, Scott]

On 10/17/14, 2:13 PM, "Eric Goodman" <Eric.Goodman at ucop.edu> wrote:
>
>Both points are understood. It's easier for US if there are URNs. Hard
>sell to a vendor that (a) already has a contract and (b) says
>"'firstname' is clearly defined to mean the name value that matches the
>provisioned entry". For them there's no ambiguity and the value is
>"globally unique" in their world.

Of course, in every sector except higher ed, it seems like the "customer"
actually might have some say, so we seem to be really bad at fulfilling
that role. Maybe everybody is bad at it and customers have never had any
say.

>I know this isn't news, but I was going to argue that they weren't being
>SAML compliant, only to see that in fact they are. So now I need to get
>into more nuanced (and less likely to sway the result) arguments.

Yes, you can blame RSA for that primarily. I fought for URI naming
exclusively pretty hard and lost.

-- Scott