On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:30 AM, jleleu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> Back from vacation, I just start working on this ticket.

Welcome back...hope it was enjoyable.

>
>
> I see four "places" where SAML is used in CAS :
> 1) for logout, we send SAML requests to client applications 
> (AbstractWebApplicationService class)
> 2) for SAML validation, we produce SAML responses with attributes 
> (AbstractSaml10ResponseView, Saml10FailureResponseView and 
> Saml10SuccessResponseView classes)
> 3) to accept SAML 1.1 login requests, we do a custom parsing of the SAML 
> requests and produce SAML responses (SamlArgumentExtractor and SamlService 
> classes)
> 4) same for SAML (2.0) login requests coming from Google 
> (GoogleAccountsArgumentExtractor and GoogleAccountsService classes).
>
> We just need the opensaml library for the SAML validation.
>
>
> The question is what should put in the optional SAML module ?
>
> By default, CAS logout requests to client applications are SAML requests and 
> the CAS clients can be/are built on this to handle CAS logout requests : it's 
> the case for the Java client.
> So I tend to think that SAML requests for logout should stay in the core as 
> it's somehow a mandatory feature of the CAS protocol.

Not exactly a mandatory feature of the CAS protocol, but doubt it
could be removed from the server at this point.  It would be nicer if
it was off by default.


>
> For other SAML features (SAML validation + SAML login requests), I think it 
> makes sense to put them in the optional SAML module : cas-server-support-saml.
>
> What do you think ?

Since Google SAML2 and CAS Attributes SAML1 really are quite different
animals, it probably is worth thinking about two separate modules.
Perhaps something like this:
* cas-server-support-google-saml2
* cas-server-support-attributes-saml1

At the unconference we starting noodling around the idea of pulling
the Google SAML2 support out into a separate war protected by a stock
CAS client.  Think of this as something like CAS/Shib-lite.   A
similar approach could be used for creating generic SSO link
components for other front-channel SSO techniques, while keeping the
CAS server core as simple as possible.  More on this later...

Best,
Bill


>
> Thanks,
> Jérôme
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [email protected]
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev

-- 
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: 
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev

Reply via email to