<html><head></head><body><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>A mass migration of a protocol? No, not really.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for clarifying this, it will definitely change our plan of attack.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Has nothing to do with it being required, it has to do with bad software, bad applications, or bad deployments (or all of the above).</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I had meant "required" in that context as a prerequisite of things generally functioning with most/all SPs. That is, not required hypothetically on technical grounds but required to work with existing configurations to a large degree.</div><div><br></div><div>That makes sense though, sounds like many things in information technology.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>These aren't metadata matters, they're deployment issues. Supporting protocols seamlessly is not a feature of most software outside of Shibboleth and maybe SSP and even when it is, it's not necessarily handled properly when it comes to application integration.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok, that's consistent with what we discussed at the shib install fest I attended earlier this year.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for these answers, they give me much to work with.</div><div><br></div><div>Brandon</div><div><br></div><div>On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 14:50 +0000, Cantor, Scott wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>On 7/22/15, 10:38 AM, "users on behalf of McKean, Brandon Scott - mckeanbs" <<a href="mailto:users-bounces@shibboleth.net">users-bounces@shibboleth.net</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:mckeanbs@jmu.edu">mckeanbs@jmu.edu</a>> wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
Hmm, so essentially there isn't really a safe way to do it across the board without disruption?
</blockquote>
A mass migration of a protocol? No, not really.
<blockquote type="cite">
I wasn't aware that SAML1 was that extensively required still.
</blockquote>
Has nothing to do with it being required, it has to do with bad software, bad applications, or bad deployments (or all of the above).
<blockquote type="cite">
Just to make sure I understand correctly, some SPs/software literally just apply selective listening of sorts when it comes to metadata?
</blockquote>
These aren't metadata matters, they're deployment issues. Supporting protocols seamlessly is not a feature of most software outside of Shibboleth and maybe SSP and even when it is, it's not necessarily handled properly when it comes to application integration.
-- Scott
</pre></blockquote></body></html>