One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub Terms
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a
license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the
shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity Python
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to the
Thoughts or concerns?
TL:DR the world disagrees with the SAML2 spec regarding datetime representation.
I've been looking over issue #445
The user is using some software that generates a date like this:
and this cannot be parsed by pysaml2.
Even if pysaml2 did parse this, internally it does not take into
account the timezone information. This means that comparing two dates
with different timezones will return incorrect results.
Dates can appear in a lot of attributes in SAML, but they are all
defined as of type `dateTime` datatype. This type is defined by XML
Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition:
However, SAML2-core on section 1.3.3 specifies that:
> #### 1.3.3 Time Values
> All SAML time values have the type `xs:dateTime`, which is built in to the W3C XML Schema Datatypes specification [Schema2], and **MUST be expressed in UTC form, with no time zone component**.
> SAML system entities SHOULD NOT rely on time resolution finer than milliseconds. Implementations MUST NOT generate time instants that specify leap seconds.
Note that at this point there are three layers:
- SAML2-core, section 1.3.3
- XML Schema Part 2: section 3.2.7: dateTime datatype definition
- ISO-8601 spec
Each layer says it does exactly what the layer below does .. but with
some exceptions .. which usually make things *a lot* harder to manage.
This means that for SAML2 the `dateTime` datatype is assumed to be in
UTC and must not define a timezone. In the example case above, the
correct value would be:
Notice that the fractional seconds have been stripped to 3 decimal
places to represent milliseconds (instead of 6 places which would mean
microseconds). The original representation had 7 decimal places which
means nanosecond precision which cannot be supported by the native
python types; numpy defines datetime64 which has greater precision
So.. the question now becomes whether implementations actually hold
that promise, and if not, how do we handle it..
Looking around, all I can find is examples where dates are in the form:
that is, they include 'Z' which means 'UTC', or '+00:00' or '-00:00'.
By including the timezone part they are invalid values.
The only place where I see correct values is the Wikipedia examples:
Looking at the history, these examples used to include 'Z', but have
been fixed by the following changeset:
which correctly summarises the change as "Removed time-zone component
from examples as this is prohibited (see section 1.3.3 of SAMLCore)".
How do we solve this?
## Plan A:
Follow the spec. Treat 'Z'-suffixed and other timezoned values as invalid.
This will probably break many running setups, as it seems other
implementations send dates including the 'Z'/UTC timezone suffix. (It
is still an open question whether implementations send other timezoned
## Plan B:
Ignore the spec, assume XML Schema dateTime datatype and accept
'Z'-suffixed values (along other timezoned values.)
This means things will continue as normal, but there is a case that we
now need to handle; comparing timezoned dates with untimezoned dates.
This is covered by the XML Schema spec in section 18.104.22.168 Order
relation on dateTime and defines the incomparable cases
## Plan C:
Do our own thing? Make things worse? Treat untimezoned dates as UTC?
I'm putting this here to see what everyone else has to say.
I'd love to go with Plan-A :) (What's the point of a specification
that none follows? I understand though, it is not a viable solution,
at least at the moment.)
In the meantime, I'll look into other implementations to figure out
what they do.
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
I think I have asked this before but I do not recall if I received a
Does the pysaml2 IdP object (and therefore SATOSA) support sending an
encrypted SAML response to the SP?
If so, what is the configuration option(s)?
This is a reminder that we're not having a call tomorrow. However, for
those folks on the list who are here, we can perhaps find a time.
Here's a poll to find us an hour to meet:
OIDF has agreed to host the OIDC libraries that I helped Google build.
They also understand that they must fund the maintenance of the libraries.
To make it more concrete they want the Python packages (which are the only one that are done) to be moved to the
OIDF GitHub site within the next couple of weeks.
This means that the cryptojwt, oidcmsg, oidcservice and oidcrp repos will be moved away from IdentityPython.
I people don’t disagree I’d like to keep the OP side repo oidcendpoint and oidc-op (not there yet) at IdentityPython.
And of course all the repos that has to do with OIDC identity federations.
The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style.
-Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)