Android Application Question

[Cantor, Scott]

On 1/4/17, 3:17 PM, "users on behalf of Tom Scavo" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of trscavo at gmail.com> wrote:

>    Wouldn't it be better all the way around if the Shibboleth IdP just supported OIDC?

Only to a degree. I think the right thing is to be agnostic where you can, and I can say that in this case, they sure as heck can and should have been. I don't think that's wrong to point out.
 
I don't believe that OIDC will support multi-lateral federation due to inherent design decisions, though I understand the value within an enterprise context, and to that all I'll say is that any commitments (casual work or prototyping aside) will depend on increased funding, acceptance of risk by the consortium to existing areas of the code if we shift current resources to it, or addition of independently funded developers willing to join the project. And there is certainly existing software work out there people can use today too.

One of the major items that the Consortium is going to be discussing with the membership in the near future is the question of OIDC certainly, but it has to be in the context of the full scope of work.

I will simply point to CAS: we got the work done after many years of requests because we had a volunteer build it in a way that worked for the design, and who supports it. It's really that simple. We can't *just* shift everybody to it and stop doing everything else. Some things, yes.

The SP in particular is in a precarious state and needs work because of some key platform changes. We can stop supporting it, and sure, that will free up hours. But that has real implications, and that's not a decision we can make ourselves, or even one I think we're likely to, but everything should be on the table.

-- Scott