Repository navigation
Update with core authn team - #47780
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Bruno Oliveira da Silva <bruno@abstractj.com>
|
@stianst before merging those changes we need to rename core-clients to core-protocols. Leaving that to you so nothing will be broken. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@abstractj @rmartinc @mposolda Just a few questions to clarify things :)
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/authentication/webauthn | ||
| - area/login/ui |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about responsibilities of the the core-protocols team, but these ones should be for the core-authn, right?
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/core | ||
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it mean, the SAML is shared for the protocols and authn?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SAML is strictly speaking a protocol, but, as I usually managed the issues related to SAML, don't know who is going to be the responsible. @mposolda WDYT? Do we share SAML for the moment?
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml | ||
| - area/test-framework | ||
| - area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it intentional to have the area/token-exchange for core-protocols, and area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation for core-authn?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would assign TE as a whole to one or both teams. Assigning just a minor part makes no sense. If we should start doing the delegation part we can share the area/token-exchange for the moment.
|
@mabartos those labels were taken based on the issues assigned to the authN team - https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20label%3Ateam%2Fcore-authn. Now the team must review @rmartinc will review and probably suggest changes as you did. |
| - area/admin/ui | ||
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/core | ||
| - area/identity-brokering |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is right now for core-iam. I suppose that only the authentication stuff related to identity brokering is for us, not the identity provider implementation. In such case, I would say that this one should remain in core-iam, only the stuff that is related to authentication via identity providers is for us. They can assign to us issues that are more area/authentication than area/identity-brokering.
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/core | ||
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SAML is strictly speaking a protocol, but, as I usually managed the issues related to SAML, don't know who is going to be the responsible. @mposolda WDYT? Do we share SAML for the moment?
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml | ||
| - area/test-framework | ||
| - area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would assign TE as a whole to one or both teams. Assigning just a minor part makes no sense. If we should start doing the delegation part we can share the area/token-exchange for the moment.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@ibm.com>
|
The new team label I've reverted the change of the Please handle any follow-up items in a follow-up pull request. |
* Update with core authn team Signed-off-by: Bruno Oliveira da Silva <bruno@abstractj.com> * Revert core-protocols change to unblock this issue Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@ibm.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Bruno Oliveira da Silva <bruno@abstractj.com> Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@ibm.com> Co-authored-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@ibm.com>
No description provided.