<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Peter,<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>This is nothing new, and nothing "forced". ProtectNetwork has been offering support for both protocols for at least a year, and they've been one of the registrars for TestShib since its inception, for which we're grateful. I hope TestShib's been a useful facility for you and you've had a good experience with Shibboleth so far.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I've always viewed any animosity perceived between these communities as, frankly, destructive and foolish. Protocols are just protocols, tokens are just tokens, and it's possible to do most of the same things using both these and other long-forgotten options, like the Liberty Alliance ID-* and ADFS. Different deployment styles and operations are more difficult or more open or more secure or more simple with different protocols, but at the end of the day, it's all just flavor. I believe all identity providers should follow ProtectNetwork's lead and support every protocol possible.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, there is an interesting discussion about trust models and attributes that we could be having instead. I know OpenID is encountering a much more enterprise world right now. This transition is causing angst and even some accusations, with anger over white-lists, black-lists, and the buttons being used for session initiation by some major identity providers. We've always focused on large-scale deployments, especially through federations, and maybe some of our practical experience would be useful.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Federated identity infrastructure for applications is our common goal. It's not glamorous. It's plumbing. We should all tone down the rhetoric so we can better focus on collaborating towards this as much as possible. Our true foe is the "Remember this password?" button in your browser, and right now, it's winning.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Take care,</div><div>Nate.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div><div><div>On 5 Apr 2008, at 17:59, Peter Williams wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="2">Convergence is happening nicely. I think OpenID has been the forcing function!</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">The note below was a very pleasant surprise to me, as Id assume'd largely OpenID deniall (if not restrained hostility) from all the US contingent of the Shibboleth community. But to the contrary: the very provider facilitating signup to the test-Shib process verly prominent promotes OpenID.</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>This has to be significantly raising the profile of OpenID in the academic SAML world.</div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>