IdP Selection WG A proposal to next steps (Draft) Version v0.2

Identified requirements  Input requirements identified in the IDP Selection MRD can be divided into 4 main categories :  Possibility for the SP to delegate the selection of the user's IDP to an ISA and express some criteria to be considered for that selection process.  Discovery of the user's preferred IDP(s) by ISAs.  Possibility for the ISA to obtain user's IDP(s) capabilities as well as other data (metadata).  GUI and UX guidelines for SP and ISA.

Envisioned next step 1/2  Delegate to the ISA –Extract from MRD all needed claims, both by IdP and by RP –Technical way to integrate the ISA on SP side using RP metadata (aim : same metadata for both ISA in the browser and in the network)  Discovery of the user's preferred IDP –Mainly internal to the ISA (to be assessed based on MRD) : should be described into an "ISA implementation guidelines" document (common guidelines for both ISA in the browser and in the network ?).

Envisioned next step 2/2  IDP's capabilities –Lacks in existing IdP metadata specifications already identified in the "Gap analysis" document : requires evolutions on these specifications. –E.g. Supported authentication context by IDP Logo and display name for each IDP …  GUI and UX guidelines for SP and ISA. –Common guidelines for both ISA in the browser and in the network.

Pending point to be discussed: which strategy ? 3 possible models for an ISA in the network a.The ISA as a facilitator : just allows the user to choose the IDP and everything else is done directly between RP and IDP b.The ISA as an IDP proxy, as defined in the Liberty/SAML specifications c.the ISA acts on behalf of the SP and just convert flows from a protocol to an other if needed

ISA as a facilitator ISA Relying Party Identity Provider     ISA used only during the IDP choice  The ISA is not aware of the rest of the transaction  The RP must implement all protocols corresponding to the various IDP

ISA is as an IDP proxy Identity Provider      Protocol on link  and  can be any widely spread protocol.  As a proxy, the ISA must implement fully the chosen protocol(s) for links  and .  Possibly single protocol between ISA and RP  IDP doesn't have knowledge of the RP and vice versa.  In case of ISA failure, users can't access the RP anymore (or with complex failover mecanism)  Users must exist in the ISA database (needs provisioning)  Might be a problem for the RP to access to IDP APIs User database ISA Relying Party   Note : depending on the protocol, links , ,  and  may or may not go through the browser.

ISA acts on behalf of the SP ISA Identity Provider      Protocol on links  and  can be any widely spread protocol.  As an intermediary, the ISA must implement fully the chosen protocol(s) for links  and .  Single protocol between ISA and RP  Opportunity to specify a simplified SSO profile of existing specs for steps  and   In case of ISA failure, SP can use another one or no ISA. Relying Party   Note : depending on the protocol, links , ,  and  may or may not go through the browser.

Roadmap proposal March plenary First draft for "Technical way to integrate the ISA" First draft for "metadata specs evolution" GUI and UX guidelines ISA implementation guidelines July October