Metadata Changeover Questions

[Cantor, Scott]

On 7/22/15, 10:48 AM, "users on behalf of McKean, Brandon Scott - mckeanbs" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of mckeanbs at jmu.edu> wrote:


>
>Hmm, perhaps I don't fully understand the implications of the metadata myself. What I previously emailed was the current metadata, with the SAML2 elements there.

Then I misunderstood you, I assumed what you were proposing was to add that.

Then you already understand...you have the metadata sitting there and yet you still have SAML 1 happening. So if you're suggesting that removing the SAML 1 metadata will fix anything, no. That's going to break any of those SPs that are actually relying on the metadata. Most of them are probably not, but I really couldn't say.

>Maybe there's more to it that I'm not seeing? I thought having all the SAML2 lines that I posted before indicated SAML2 support was there. for our side. (And when I've used Testshib in testing it, it appears to be using SAML2, I could only make it use SAML1 when modifying the metadata to remove SAML2 bits.)

Testshib is not an InCommon-driven service.

-- Scott