MFA Interop Working Group

[Nicholas Roy <>]

I'd recommend joining the Kantara WG-FI and contributing them there.  
Less places to track the conversation, and it would be good to have you 
in that 'room'.

Nick

On 10/7/16 2:50 PM, Eric Goodman wrote:
> Good point on SP enforcement, though I'll note that we were inconsistent on that in 
> other areas of the profile as well (see "ForceAuthn", which is defined for 
> IdP support but not SP enforcement).
>
> I'll propose all three comments once I figure out where such comments should 
> be routed. (And yes that's a request for guidance on how to submit comments 
> if people have guidance to provide.)
>
> --- Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
>
>  
> [mailto:]
>  On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 1:06 PM
> To: Nicholas Roy; 
>
> Subject: RE: [MFA-Interop] Software support for our MFA Interoperability 
> authnContext value
>
> > Seems like this is something that SSP should support if it doesn't,
> > and I don't think that missing it should block adoption of this profile.
> > The profile should drive software that doesn't support it, to support it.
> This is basic SAML conformance stuff, but I think Eric more or less asked 
> just yesterday that the implementation profile go ahead and include explicit 
> requirements for this to call it out. There's also a more important and 
> generally overlooked piece, which is that if the SP requests it, it needs to 
> be able to enforce it (and if not, the application had better know that it 
> hasn't been enforced). That could be added to the implementation profile as 
> well.
>
> -- Scott