* Jos Westerbeke jos.westerbeke@eur.nl [2019-05-15 14:54]:
On 15/05/2019, 14:26, "FIM4L on behalf of Peter Schober" <fim4l-bounces@lists.daasi.de on behalf of peter.schober@univie.ac.at> wrote: I.e., I wouldn't aim for *one* category/classification/grouping of SAML SPs (what you call "SAML connection" above, AFAIU?) that should cover the two cases of "can work without recognising returning subjects" vs. "needs stable identifier", but two separate ones, clearly defined and delineated.
I think you're right.
Or maybe it will only be one category but then only for the "can work without recognising returning subjects (so don't send anything along)" case? Everything else is then the usual "SPs requsts stuff and IDPs release what they find appropriate", with or without CoCo, etc. but always with an identifier that also allows tracking. Maybe a category would help here, maybe not. (Putting it this way 5.b and 5.c merge into one, I think.)
Of course if the negative category ("privacy gold standard") isn't technically workable then this will all look different again. I've poked a few people to find that out. Accounting for time zone differences (and a day off or two on my side) mean we'll hopefully know more by next week.
-peter