[Openid-specs-fastfed] FastFed Requirements

[Hardt, Dick]

A goal of FastFed is to lower the friction of implementing and deploying federation so that far more users are federated making the web safer.

A major source of friction for SaaS apps is choosing what to implement from SAML / OIDC.

One of the outputs of FastFed will be best practices for app developers to support federation. If they follow the recipe, then out of the box they will work with all the FastFed compliant IdPs. For small SaaS app developers, not only do they need to figure out what to implement, they then need to figure out how each IdP can connect to them.

/Dick

On 6/7/17, 1:48 PM, someone claiming to be "Mike Schwartz" <mike at gluu.org> wrote:

    I agree that IdP vendors < SaaS providers; I don't agree that IdP's < 
    SaaS providers. But if we're talking about admins, why aren't we valuing 
    IdP admins?
    
    Regarding the ratio... what we find is that the minority of SaaS 
    providers support inbound SAML (and almost none support inbound OpenID 
    Connect). That's why so many SSO services are still pushing passwords.
    
    Generally, SaaS providers get serious about supporting SAML when they 
    get a critical mass of requests from their customers. At that point, 
    they can justify the SAML investment. So it's mostly just the larger 
    SaaS providers. Even fewer support OpenID Connect (almost none, Amazon 
    being one of the exceptions).
    
    - Mike
    
    
    
    On 2017-06-07 15:06, Hardt, Dick wrote:
    > On 6/7/17, 12:38 PM, someone claiming to be "Openid-specs-fastfed on
    > behalf of openid-specs-fastfed at lists.openid.net"
    > <openid-specs-fastfed-bounces at lists.openid.net on behalf of
    > openid-specs-fastfed at lists.openid.net> wrote:
    > 
    >     More organizations have IDPs then SaaS providers support federated
    >     authentication. Frankly, SaaS providers only support federated 
    > authn
    >     when they get enough demand from customers, which sort of speaks to 
    > the
    >     ratio I am positing.
    > 
    > Mike: I’m confused what ratio you are implying here. Would you clarify?