Metadata Changeover Questions

[McKean, Brandon Scott - mckeanbs]

Based on the domain from your email address I looked at the InCommon
copy of your IDP's metdata (entityID urn:mace:incommon:jmu.edu) and
that has no sign of SAML2.0.
So I still think Scott is right and you're up for a long and hard
transition period.

Hmm, it would seem the metadata we have on the IDP and the metadata InCommon publishes aren't as in-sync as I suspected.

In that case, I suspect the next step would be to publish the current metadata to InCommon. That is, the one with both SAML1 and SAML2 support. That shouldn't break anything provided I include support for all protocols that are currently listed, right?

Brandon

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 17:17 +0200, Peter Schober wrote:

* McKean, Brandon Scott - mckeanbs <mckeanbs at jmu.edu<mailto:mckeanbs at jmu.edu>> [2015-07-22 16:49]:




I assumed the OP already had SAML2 support in metadata and was merely
considering removing SAML1 wholesale. Seems that's not the case (no
sign of SAML2 for JMU, in 2015), so I misunderstood the much wider
implications of that question than removing potentially unneeded
SAML1 endpoints.


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.



Based on the domain from your email address I looked at the InCommon
copy of your IDP's metdata (entityID urn:mace:incommon:jmu.edu) and
that has no sign of SAML2.0.
So I still think Scott is right and you're up for a long and hard
transition period.

-peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20150722/0a9d8731/attachment-0001.html>