We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
It looks like SAML request valid format is
<samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" ... saml:Issuer${ENTITY_ID}</saml:Issuer> </samlp:AuthnRequest>
Current SAML Request format generated by flask_saml2 is :
<samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" ... <saml:Issuer xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">${ENTITY_ID}</saml:Issuer> </samlp:AuthnRequest>
Not sure whether this is a bug or whether both formats are valid.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
It looks like SAML request valid format is
<samlp:AuthnRequest
xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol"
xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
...
saml:Issuer${ENTITY_ID}</saml:Issuer>
</samlp:AuthnRequest>
Current SAML Request format generated by flask_saml2 is :
<samlp:AuthnRequest
xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol"
...
<saml:Issuer xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">${ENTITY_ID}</saml:Issuer>
</samlp:AuthnRequest>
Not sure whether this is a bug or whether both formats are valid.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: