Re: [saml-dev] JSON metadata

[Ian Young <ian@iay.org.uk>]

On 27 Sep 2012, at 18:41, Tom Scavo <trscavo@gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is, if SAML federations are
> to interfederate with non-SAML federations (built around OAuth2,
> specifically), XML metadata is not going to cut the mustard.

Well, right, what the two kinds of entity will want is different.  SAML federations may need to be able to represent non-SAML concepts, and non-SAML federations may need to be able to represent SAML concepts.

I'd have thought, though, that the most natural way of doing that would be for SAML federations to use extensions to SAML metadata, and for non-SAML federations to do something equivalent based on their own native provisions.  I can't see any reason to believe that having the SAML TC develop or standardise a proposal for a metadata format for use by non-SAML entities (it certainly wouldn't be used by SAML entities, after all) would be a good use of anyone's time.

In other words, XML metadata may not "cut the mustard" in some contexts, but I still can't see the precise use case you're obviously visualising.

	-- Ian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature