Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Service Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on 18 Sept 2018, and was subsequently amended to incorporate updates from the MRPS.
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before a service provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for service provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Identity Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on 1 January 2019, and was subsequently amended to incorporate updates from the MRPS.
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before an identity provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for identity provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Key Management Practice Statement must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. This version reached rough consensus on ….
Definitions and terminology The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 141.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Identity Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on 1 January 2019.
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before an identity provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for identity provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Service Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on ….
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before a service provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for service provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Identity Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on ….
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before an identity provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for identity provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Service Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on ….
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before a service provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for service provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
Changes to the Requirements for SAML2 Identity Providers that are purely technical in nature must reach rough consenus/no opposition at the SAFIRE Participants’ Forum. Changes to the administrative requirements are synchronised with the Metadata Registration Practice Statement. This version reached rough consensus on ….
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before an identity provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for identity provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
…
SAFIRE generates a number of metadata aggregates for various purposes, including inter-federation and its own internal operations. This document gives a broad overview of how the aggregation process works. It is currently non-normative and will be refined over time.
Metadata aggregator SAFIRE makes use of WAYF’s PHPH (PHederation PHeeder) metadata aggregation software. An overview of the configuration of this aggregator and the aggregates it generates is publically available at https://phph.safire.ac.za/.
…
The following describes the technical and administrative checks that will be made before an identity provider is admitted into the SAFIRE federation within the SAML2 Technology Profile. It also serves as a checklist for identity provider operators for assessing their readiness to participate.
Metadata MUST1 have an entityID that is a URL (well-known location). The URL SHOULD use the https scheme and it is RECOMMENDED that valid metadata be available at this URL. MUST use secure (https) end-points for any or . MUST contain elements detailing every possible scoping value (domain) for eduPersonPrincipalName and mail. These MUST NOT be regular expressions. All scopes MUST be valid DNS domain names and those domains MUST be owned by the organisation (or have written confirmation from the domain owner). MUST contain an element, where: MUST reflect the legal name of the juristic person. MAY reflect a commonly known or shortened version of the organisation’s name. SHOULD contain the organisation’s web site address. MUST contain at least one of contactType="technical" and SHOULD contain one of contactType="support". Where is given this SHOULD be a role account rather than an individual. SHOULD contain an , with at least the following elements set: — meaningful name for the identity provider. — short (max 140 chars) description of the purpose. It is RECOMMENDED that be set and point at the organisation’s privacy policy. This MAY be required in future. It is RECOMMENDED that a be provided. Any logo MUST be served from a secure (https) server. Logos SHOULD have an aspect ratio as close to 1:1 as possible and SHOULD be at least 100x100 pixels (although 300x300 is RECOMMENDED). SHOULD NOT contain a element (any existing one SHALL be removed by the federation aggregator). SAML certificates included in metadata SHOULD be self-signed. Web server certificates used for end-points MUST use PKI that is reasonably likely to be embedded in the browser of all users of the identity provider. Unless an explanation is provided, these SHALL be tested against the root CA lists of common browsers. Language and Localisation The SAML metadata specification allows display elements such as to be localised by using the xml:lang attribute to specify a BCP 47 language code. In common with other federations worldwide, English (xml:lang="en") MUST always be included and will be used as the default when no localised version is available.
…