oidc-survey - RE: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting
Subject: OIDC Survey Working Group
List archive
- From: Eric Goodman <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: RE: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:12:33 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) ;
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:myEw6BEoTSFGsB8AKyHxEZ1GYnF86YWxBRYc798ds5kLTJ76rsqwAkXT6L1XgUPTWs2DsrQf1LqQ7vurADFIyK3CmU5BWaQEbwUCh8QSkl5oK+++Imq/EsTXaTcnFt9JTl5v8iLzG0FUHMHjew+a+SXqvnZBUin4YEByJ+j+X5XPldq6xsiz/ZbUZgBPgny6e7w4ZEGxrAna89ILm5VvO44wzBDOp35PfaJR32w+dnyJmBOpy92x99ZM9CNcvvsnv5ptS6TxOYs/SrBdBTIOLmsy/IvmuQSVHljH3WcVTmhDykkAOAPC9hyvBpo=
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
(only sending to the actual list) Sorry, I had a work meeting and missed the meeting. A couple of random comments in response to the meeting notes: 1)
The Highlights don’t mention support for federation (in the sense of trust roots and that sort of thing). Probably worth including something along
those lines.
·
See Roland’s info on metadata and trust models, etc. for potential approaches. But for the survey I think the question is whether this is something
to be addressed 2)
Perhaps questions about the importance of supporting
just OIDC vs. supporting OIDC and other protocols.
·
I think this is relevant because the notes say:
i. Developers want:
[plugins for] NodeJS and other runtime environments, not Apache or other web servers.
ii. Scott C. made this point in many sessions on OIDC, but having a library implies single
protocol and single model approaches. While developers may prefer to have libraries installed, doing this at the library level (rather than at the REMOTE_USER kind of level) means that all logic for authentication, signaling, federation, etc. has to be handled
within an application. I increasingly believe that the increasing use of proxies is indicative of the difficulty of putting the necessary trust and messaging framework into applications.
shibd and most (I think it’s fair to say “most”) other commercial SAML implementations basically act as proxies for this reason. Maybe beyond the scope of this survey, but I’m wondering if the AAF approach presented is a good model: standardize the communication
between the proxy and the application and put support for that layer of communication in the various application libraries, but still leave the protocol handling outside of the application.
I’ll stop there because I think I’m opining beyond the scope of what a survey should be looking at. For direct relevance to the survey I think the raw questions
(#1 and #2) are what I’ve thought of that I didn’t see directly referenced. --- Eric From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of David Walker Everyone, I've posted some quick notes from today's lunch meeting on our wiki space (https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/5wYZBg). Please fix my mistakes and omissions. I've also added instructions for subscribing to our mailing list on the wiki. ("To subscribe this list, email
with the subject line
subscribe oidc-survey.") Please do so soon, as I make no promises to continue to send to all of you individually in the future... David |
- Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, David Walker, 09/26/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/27/2016
- RE: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Eric Goodman, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Wu, Albert, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Patrick Radtke, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/30/2016
- Re: Quick notes from today's OIDC Survey meeting, Alan Crosswell, 09/30/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.