attrname-format in SAML response with non-standard attributes

[IAM David Bantz]

Vendor edready has idiosyncratic non-standard requirements for attributes;
seems we’re going to end up with simple strings for the SAML Name like
“Email” and “FirstNamt". How much should the IdP care about the nameFormat,
which in hasty prototypes of these unique attributes, seems to be released
with
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri
Should I explicitly specify something like
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:basic
or
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:unspecified
?

David St Pierre Bantz
UA IAM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20220826/e7d507f8/attachment.htm>