OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

saml-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [saml-dev] Attribute equality during AttributeQuery

On 8/28/14, 5:54 PM, "Peter Major" <peter.major@forgerock.com> wrote:

>Will there be a 2.1/new version of the spec?

The person that was volunteering to work on 2.1 is no longer in a position
to do so. I made it very clear that I can't do it. I wrote a dozen
post-2.0 specs that were completely ignored. There's nothing in it for my
project to pay me to do that work. When we need extensions, we can
implement them ourselves, and so far we'd be the only ones implementing
them whether I wrote them up or not. If there's some sign of that
changing, then it's possible my conclusion on that would change.

But this particular issue isn't a blind spot, it's a deliberate choice to
make the standard more complex and difficult to make sense of to
accomodate bad implementation choices by vendors. That's another reason I
won't do it again; I fought against these mistakes already and lost.

Your other example of the artifact binding is not really a blind spot,
it's just a feature that isn't terribly useful but falls out of symmetry
and is fully defined if somebody chose to implement it. Shibboleth SPs can
issue requests by artifact, but we never bothered to implement it in the
IdP to date.

IMHO, what's needed more than a 2.1 are a willingness by implementers to
do more than the checklist minimum, and an implementer's guide. The latter
has been needed all along, but is just a case of me not being willing to
spend my free time doing it.

-- Scott

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]