Rendered version: https://kantarainitiative.github.io/SAMLprofiles/saml2int.html
Issue tracking table
|1||Rainer Hörbe||NA||The first paragraph in the introduction should contrast the deployment profile with an implementation profile, and reference the SAML Implementation Profile for Federation Interop for this purpose. The difference between both types of profiles is not widely understood.||(Scott) |
I think you may be correct about that and that the text is written with a presumption of the verification approach, and if we didn't specify that (and I don't think we did), it's open to methods that wouldn't have the problem we were concerned about. I think it needs work. Good catch.
|2||Rainer Hörbe||SDP-MD02||I do not understand the explanation for [SDP-MD02]. If PKI with path validation is being used, there would be no hindrance to roll out new keys, even if metadata and assertions use the same key. I have seen a IDPs that publish their own metadata and the well-know location using the same signing key as for assertions.||(Scott) Ouch. Yeah, that's backwards.|
|4||Rainer Hörbe||SDP-SP23||I think that the division of IDP-discovery into disco-UI and preference persistence is a significant improvement over the current IDP-Discovery spec, fixing the issue that embedded discovery results are not shared across SPs. See the RA21-proposal: https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/21376/NISO_RP-27-2019_RA21_Identity_Discovery_and_Persistence-public_comment.pdf. Rumor has it that Leif implemented it in pyFF.|