Docusign

[O'Dowd, Josh]

Even though we have already gone down that kludgy road, I agree with Scott and Nate…  Pressure DocuSign to allow for the NameID they love so dearly to be mapped to the incoming attribute of choice and assertion signing/encryption.

Other than that, you will be forced to supply them non-encrypted assertions containing a persistent NameID, Docusign accountId, and DocuSign permissionProfileId.

Josh

From: users [mailto:users-bounces at shibboleth.net] On Behalf Of IAM David Bantz
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 12:36 PM
To: Shib Users <users at shibboleth.net>
Subject: Re: Docusign

Given the interest from several institutions, is there a way we could pool resources or call on those with deep expertise to provide a clear explicit Shib IdP configuration for all of us to achieve SSO with DocuSign? What incentive might I provide?

David Bantz
UA OIT IAM

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu<mailto:cantor.2 at osu.edu>> wrote:
> We released our OSU ID number to Docusign as the NameID.  It's as
> persistent as anything we support right now.  Ideally, we would have a
> person registry identifier we could release instead.

That's not a SAML persistent ID. I would never want to be in a situation where a Format is RP-specific (one thing for A and another for B). I have refused to do that in a number of cases.

If they require "persistent", they'd better hande a long, ugly, impossible to predict value.

-- Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net<mailto:users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20160809/d3ae7194/attachment.html>