[Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-13 Thread Harsha Kumara
Hi All, This is regarding the behavior of Authentication flow between multiple service providers. I have created two service providers with following configurations. *SP1* This service provider has two options which allow to users to login either Basic Authentication scheme or Facebook Configu

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Asela Pathberiya
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Harsha Kumara wrote: > Hi All, > > This is regarding the behavior of Authentication flow between multiple > service providers. > > I have created two service providers with following configurations. > > *SP1* > > This service provider has two options which allow

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Johann Nallathamby
Hi Asela, On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Asela Pathberiya wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Harsha Kumara wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> This is regarding the behavior of Authentication flow between multiple >> service providers. >> >> I have created two service providers with followi

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Ishara Karunarathna
Hi Johan, On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > Hi Asela, > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Asela Pathberiya wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Harsha Kumara wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> This is regarding the behavior of Authentication flow between m

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Johann Nallathamby
Can we change the implementation as follows: If user is going to login to application Y, which has steps 1 to *m*, and user has already logged into Y which has steps 1 to *n*, given p <= m , n User is already authenticated to step *p* of application Y, if user has logged in from any of the optiona

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Darshana Gunawardana
Hi Johann, On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:45 PM Johann Nallathamby wrote: > Can we change the implementation as follows: > > If user is going to login to application Y, which has steps 1 to *m*, and > user has already logged into Y > Should be corrected as application X? which has steps 1 to *n*, >

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Johann Nallathamby
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:55 AM Darshana Gunawardana wrote: > Hi Johann, > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:45 PM Johann Nallathamby > wrote: > >> Can we change the implementation as follows: >> >> If user is going to login to application Y, which has steps 1 to *m*, >> and user has already logged in

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Farasath Ahamed
Farasath Ahamed Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com Mobile: +94777603866 Blog: blog.farazath.com Twitter: @farazath619 On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:55 AM Darsh

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-14 Thread Johann Nallathamby
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:55 AM Darshana Gunawardana wrote: > Hi Johann, > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:45 PM Johann Nallathamby > wrote: > >> Can we change the implementation as follows: >> >> If user is going to login to application Y, which has steps 1 to *m*, >> and user has already logged in

Re: [Architecture] IS Authentication Flow Behavior Between Multiple Service Providers

2017-07-30 Thread Harsha Kumara
I have created https://wso2.org/jira/browse/IDENTITY-6198 to track this. On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:55 AM Darshana Gunawardana > wrote: > >> Hi Johann, >> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:45 PM Johann Nallathamby >> wrote: >> >>> Can