<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to send a reminder about one of the actions from a prior WG meeting. (Sorry I missed the most recent one.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For those who attended, you may recall that we discussed shuffling the
<a href="https://openid.net/specs/fastfed-saml-1_0-02.html#rfc.section.3.1.2">SAML profile</a>. Currently, the profile requires putting the “username” into the SAML Subject. Other data, such as the persistent “externalId”, goes into the SAML Attributes. This
reflects common industry practices.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The question was whether to invert. Put the persistent “externalId” into the SAML Subject. The “username” and other fields would go into the attributes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The intent was primarily to signal a best practice of relying on the persistent ID as the primary identifier, since “username” is mutable and recyclable. In reality, we recognize that a lot of software today is built around the “username”
and the software won’t change. That’s OK. Again, this is purely arranging the data in a way that signals best practices. No other functional changes. All the same data still exists in the SAML response.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The action we took: </b>Check our own systems to determine if this materially impacts the level of effort for conforming to FastFed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I checked on my side and the work appears trivial for my org. Simply another transformer to map SAML messages into an internal representation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>REQUEST: Before the next meeting, can others confirm if the impact of the proposed change is acceptable?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ll send another reminder as the meeting data approaches.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Darin<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>