Skip to content
New issue

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

MSC1721: Rename m.login.cas to m.login.sso #1721

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 1, 2018

Conversation

richvdh
Copy link
Member

@richvdh richvdh commented Nov 15, 2018

@richvdh richvdh changed the title Proposal to rename m.login.cas to m.login.sso MSC1721: Rename m.login.cas to m.login.sso Nov 15, 2018
@richvdh richvdh added the proposal A matrix spec change proposal label Nov 15, 2018
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

generally seems straightforward to me. I assume implementations are recommended to support the CAS endpoints for now, and to advertise CAS and SSO login stages until clients can be reasonably updated.

`/_matrix/client/r0/login/cas/redirect`: they should issue a redirect to
their configured single-sign-on system.

4. Servers should probably rename the post-authentication callback endpoint
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/probably// imo

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've actually removed this section altogether. The server's behaviour needs to be completely different depending on whether it's handling a CAS or a SAML response, so it makes sense to leave it as /login/cas/ticket for a CAS response.


1. `m.login.sso` should be defined as a valid login type for return from `GET
/login`. (We should probably mention `m.login.cas` in the spec while we are
there).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will it return m.long.sso along with m.login.cas or instead of it? I'd probably recommend "along" for the transition period (but I'd really be interested to know how many clients are even watching for m.login.cas - probably there's nothing worth discussing).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/m.long.sso/m.login.sso

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yup think it's best to return both for now.

riot-web has some very rudimentary support for m.login.cas, but that's it afaik

@richvdh
Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented Nov 22, 2018

This doesn't seem terribly contentious.

@mscbot fcp merge

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Nov 22, 2018

Team member @richvdh has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@mscbot mscbot added proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. disposition-merge labels Nov 22, 2018
@mscbot mscbot added final-comment-period and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Nov 26, 2018
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Nov 26, 2018

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Dec 1, 2018

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 merged commit 1e9a7d9 into master Dec 1, 2018
@richvdh richvdh added spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec and removed proposal-in-review labels Dec 11, 2018
@richvdh
Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented Dec 17, 2018

this is implemented in matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#2279 and matrix-org/synapse#4220

@richvdh richvdh deleted the rav/proposal/sso_login branch December 17, 2018 09:54
@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Dec 17, 2018

gah, very annoying that deleting the branch removes the rendered URL from the MSC: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/rav/proposal/sso_login/proposals/1721-rename-cas-to-sso.md

I'm going to hit the restore button if that's ok

@ara4n ara4n restored the rav/proposal/sso_login branch December 17, 2018 11:25
@richvdh
Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented Dec 17, 2018

doh. though now that this has merged it might make more sense to change the link to point to master.

@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec labels Jan 9, 2019
@turt2live turt2live added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Jan 17, 2019
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Merged 🎉

Spec PR was #1789

@turt2live turt2live added the kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec label Apr 20, 2020
@afranke afranke deleted the rav/proposal/sso_login branch September 22, 2021 10:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants