IdP implementation roadmap

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/16/19, 12:16 PM, "users on behalf of Nate Klingenstein" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of ndk at signet.id> wrote:

> I don't think I was arguing and I apologize if it came across that way.  There simply exists that 0.1%.  I count 106
> unspecifieds in InCommon's metadata, for example.  There are 1247 in metadata on SAMLtest.

I wasn't speaking in response to you, but to the people who respond to "you don't need to send that format" with "yes, I do". No, you don't. Nobody asking for it even understands what they're doing, and nobody claiming to want it cares what they get.

Systems that consume NameID invariably support whatever Formats their one-off customers give them and so using shared metadata to advertise Formats doesn't really work. It's why I told InCommon not to bother adding that feature.

> Is it the only way?  Sorry for forgetting this.  I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but wouldn't it be possible to change in
> conf/authn/authn-comparison.xml:

AuthnContext classes have nothing to do with NameID Formats, that's not the same feature.

-- Scott