>(i) Support of SAML for metadata in other formats
>
>- Background: during the recent Webinar on SAML2.1 Hal received a
>question from the audience regarding the possible use of metadata
>expressed in other formats, and whether SAML could support it. See email
>on the list:
>https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/201210/msg00005.ht
>ml
>
>- Scott expressed doubts if SAML could be used with other protocols.
I don't know what that statement refers to, but I don't think that's what
I said. I know for a fact SAML metadata works fine with other protocols,
so I wasn't saying that.
>- Chad asks if there was anything wrong with the current format of our
>metadata. There is a project called Global Federated Identity and
>Privilege Management (GFIPM) that uses SAML.
The context for that is that they don't use SAML metadata and we want to
know why that is.
>- John Bradley: the OIDC (OpenID-Connect) and folks such as Roland
>Herzberg(?)
Hedberg.
>- JohnB states that OIDC has a metadata format for individual IdPs, but
>for a Centralized IdP approach there are a couple of proposals making its
>way in the OIDC community. So a decision has not yet been made there.
>JohnB states that it's the "SAML people" in OIDC that desire the
>centralized approach. Scott says that it sounds like a business problem
>and implementation issue.
I was talking about the lack of progress on various non-higher-ed efforts
to launch trust federations with SAML being a business problem, and one
that will not go away because they take out angle brackets.
>(iii) Webinar:
>
>- Hal: Webinar went well. Over 70+ people connected online. The only
>impacting issue seems to be the metadata format question. Would have been
>good if we had a better answer for that question. Scott says he tried to
>answer but the audio was poor. Hal suggest for next time we should use a
>back-channel (eg. chat room).
The audio was fine, the format of the webinar was the problem, with no
chat capability to answer questions.
-- Scott
