Hi Leif,
I added 2 pipes to buildin.py:
- publish_html creates static HTML views of IDPs and SPs, using XSLT based on Peter Schober’s alternative to MET;
- publish_split: similar to store, but added validUntil and creates signed XML-file per EntityDescriptor. This can be consumed dynamically by ADFS in an IDP role.
I put it directly into buildin.py because it shares some code with the sign pipe. Is this viable from your PoV - if yes, I would make an PR.
Cheers, Rainer
Hi all,
being part of Commons Conservancy brought up yet another subject,
which is whether we should add a header with license information in
every file in the projects under idpy. This is not something done in
an abstract way, there is a specific format modelling this information
(see https://spdx.org/ and https://reuse.software/ - more specifically
https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/) Still, I find it problematic.
We want to open up the question to the wider community and consider
their thoughts on this. The forwarded message below is discussing this
subject. You can see the question we posed, the answer we got and my
comments. Feel free to tell us what you think on this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 at 09:56
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: May 8, 2019, 8:15 AM -0700
>
> > Why does CC think having a single license file per project is
> > insufficient? Our thought is that if we can avoid adding a header to
> > every single file, that would be nice, esp. given we already have this
> > info in the license file and we have the Note Well.
>
>
> this is not just our opinion, but something that is an industry and
> community standard for legal compliance these days. When companies like
> Siemens, Samsung or Honeywell use some code in one of the hundreds or
> thousands of devices and systems in their product line, they need to be
> able to provide the correct license and a download of the exact version.
> This means machine readability too.
>
I've actually observed the opposite of that. Communities abandon the
"license in every file" model, and just use a single LICENSE file in
the root of the project. The LICENSE file contains license
information, that is, it is not a single license but it has exception
sections and so on.
> To quote from https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/ :
>
> Scroll to the section "2. Include a copyright notice and license in each
> file"...
>
> "Source code files are often reused across multiple projects, taken from
> their origin and repurposed, or otherwise end up in repositories where
> they are separate from its origin. You should therefore ensure that all
> files in your project have a comment header that convey that file’s
> copyright and license information: Who are the copyright holders and
> under which license(s) do they release the file?
>
Continuing from above, the standardization of package-management
formats and tools has helped exactly with that: to avoid distribution
of single files, and instead provide packages and modules. It is bad
practice and considered a hack to copy files. Nobody liked that model
and everyone is moving away; it is unstructured, it becomes
unmanageable and it will cause problems.
> It is highly recommended that you keep the format of these headers
> consistent across your files. It is important, however, that you do not
> remove any information from headers in files of which you are not the
> sole author.
>
> You must convey the license information of your source code file in a
> standardised way, so that computers can interpret it. You can do this
> with an SPDX-License-Identifier tag followed by an SPDX expression
> defined by the SPDX specifications."
>
> (the text goes on for a while after this, to clarify the point but this
> is the basic gist of it)
>
> There is a nice Python tool to check:
>
> https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool
>
> I hope this makes sense
>
Well, it does not make complete sense. We're talking about licensing a
project. A project is not just code; there are data files (html, xml,
yaml, json files), binary files (archives/zip, images, audio, video,
etc), text files (configs, ini-files, etc) all "not-code". How do you
mark those files? Does the LICENSE file need a license-header? The
json format does not define comments, how do you add a header there?
If a binary file does not get a license header, why should a file with
code get one?
I would expect there to be a way to have the needed information
unified. If the files themselves cannot provide this information it
has to be external; thus the LICENSE file. If someone is worried about
somebody else re-using single files that do not have license
information (a python file, a png image, etc) there is really nothing
you can do (the DRM industry has been trying to solve for a long time;
and still your best bet is "social DRM").
Since, we're developing on open source with a permissive license, even
if someone does that, should we be happy that someone is actually
using what we built or sad that the files they copied did not have a
license header? And if they include the license information of that
copied file in their project's LICENSE file, is this solved?
Having pointed these contradictions, I am thinking that the "license
in every file" model seems to be a step backwards. It is introducing
overhead and does not really solve the problem, while at the same time
it enables a culture of bad practice (copying files around).
Cheers,
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
Hello all!
Given Ivan’s availability and the massive scheduling headache that is next week, I’m canceling Tuesday’s call. Our next call (unless something unexpected happens) is on 15 November 2022.
See you all on Slack!
Sent from my iPad
Attendees:
Roland, Johan, Ivan, Heather, Scott, Matthew, Giuseppe
Notes:
0 - Agenda bash
1 - GitHub review
a. OIDC - https://github.com/IdentityPython (JWTConnect-Python-OidcRP, JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT, etc)
OIDC Federation version 23 has been updated and are now out for an unofficial final review. Need an editorial review as much as a technical review. Roland has updated his implementation to be compliant with this new version, in particular compliance with CIBA which required entities to be allowed to be more than one thing at a time. Expect to finish in 2-3 weeks.
Ivan is working on https://github.com/IdentityPython/idpy-oidc/pull/32. This adds support to revoke/invalidate tokens. Seems to work well in eduTEAMS.
Ivan is also looking at how to manage the audience for the policies and how that interacts with the resource indicators.
When will eduTEAMS front end become public? No date. No idea when this will be resolved.
b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA
Many changes; see discussion on mailing list re: supporting multiple ACS endpoints. See https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/409. This will be configurable on the backend. Note that given the divergence of IdPs out there, will need to be able to configure this on as granular a level as practical.
We have talked about turning Satosa into a FastAPI service. Maybe when we make that change, we can also change/specify what runs when certain endpoints are involved.
There is also an MR about allowing Satosa to be configured under a specified path. The MR allows for the base path to be changed. https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/405
Plans to make the error messages for cookies and context state available (discussed at TNC).
Would be helpful if others run flake8 on the Satosa code and fix bugs as they are found.
c. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2
Ivan has converted pysaml2 to use poetry and has also reformatted the code.
See https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/blob/master/pyproject.toml, https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/blob/master/tox.ini
Ivan is going to release a 7.3.0-alpha version with the changes up to now, and then plans to
• get the CI working
• rework the docs - switch to mkdocs and update the content
• go back to the actual code (a few things there happening in parallel to the above)
Other development open for contribution:
• https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/issues/869#issuecomment-1256707533
d. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, etc)
At the last idpy meeting, had a new djangosaml2 release. Nothing changed since then. Giuseppe has tagged a new version, but the pipelines don't work yet.
2 - Documentation
Note that all docs will (eventually) be switched to using mkdocs. When Roland is done with his work on idpy OIDC will work on converting documentation to mkdocs and using poetry.
See:
• a new README file: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/#readme
• a DEVELOPER guide: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/blob/master/DEVELOPERS.md
• a CONTRIBUTING guide: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
• a SECURITY guide: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/blob/master/SECURITY.md
(a few things remaining as TODO) GitHub suggests that we additionally favor some Code of conduct document, but will skip this for now..
• https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/community
Still needs to work on the release documentation for pysaml2.
Thanks! Heather
