* Jiri Pavlik jiri.pavlik@mzk.cz [2019-04-05 16:58]:
could you comment, please, on eduPersonTargetedID as requested attribute at Elsevier SP in eduID.at metadata? - https://met.refeds.org/met/entity/https%253A%252F%252Fsdauth.sciencedirect.c...
What is it you're asking speficically? Why the Elsevier SAML SP as registered in eduID.at lists eduPersonTargetedID as a requested attribute? If no existing SP in the world were still using eduPersonTargetedID we wouldn't be having these discussions, would we? So obviously there are SPs that use ePTID today, even in the federation I operate. If you could clarify what the question is I can try to be more specific, instead of having to guess what contradiction you're looking for (or whatever).
[ Of course looking closer at our metadata you'd see that we also modified our copy to contain a NameIDFormat element with 'persistent' listed first. So any Shibboleth IDP that supported the SAML2 standard NameIDs -- not the eduPerson legacy attribute -- would work with that SP just fine using proper persistent NameIDs. I.e., none of our IDPs have to send eduPersonTargetedID to that SP to make it work.)
In case this is still not clear: The ongoing activity to deprecate eduPersonTargetedID will not magically make it disappear from established SPs, nor will it forbid its continued use. But what it will do is prevent new guideline documents being written such as FIM4L's from claiming to support or establish or adhere to Best Current Practices and international standards while at the same time perpetuating or even recommending use of attributes that should not be used per those very standards.
That's what I'm after: To avoid new standards from being created that cement use of obsolete legacy technology even if that legacy technology is still being used today. (Otherwise why bother?)
-peter