 |
 |
-----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew Slowe Sent: 23 January 2012 08:27 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Use of SimpleSAMLphp On 23/01/2012 08:16, "Andy Swiffin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: ==== Just looking around... we're thinking of replacing our commercial local IdP application with SimpleSAMLphp (because it's simpl, works, doesn't have a ?massive dependancy list and we like it) and I was taking that thought to its logical conclusion where we consolidate and also replace our Shibboleth IdP (which is currently "protected" by our local IdP) too... ==== I would have a word with Ian Young before going to far down the path. I'm not quite sure why you would want to get rid of a Shibboleth IdP if you have one already. (Unless it's a 1.3 one). Shib 2 seems very well behaved to me, doesn't require much (if any) care and feeding and most importantly is what the majority of the rest of the people are using - safety in numbers! For something which is so core to your organisational business I would have thought you'd want to be as bespoke as little as possible. ==== It was the older SAML1 type stuff I was worried about -- but I have no idea how much of a problem that would actually be in the real world any more... is there a simple way to tell how many assertions went out by the "old" way? ==== Anything which goes via the wayf will still be SAML1. Just look in your shib logs its all there. Cheers Andy The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096