If you insist on "unspecified", you need an override and nameIDFormatPrecedence, because that Format does not work with the first two mechanisms. Please ensure that you have uploaded valid metadata for your provider before testing. Having trouble getting your SAML configuration set up? Google SAML has its own guide. The namespace in our relying-party. INFO Shibboleth. Hover over the answer and click "Best Answer. It takes a lot of time that I could be better spending on something more useful. I found that this had been previously reported in but was closed without noting that ADFS at least will reject the empty tag. So NameIDFormats are a trivial thing to manage when you create the metadata anyway, that's why it's the suggested way to do it, it's just the easiest way to get the result you want.
Hi, We have a SP connecting to and IDP proxy then to our IDP. The SP wants format: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAMLnameid-format:unspecified.
Shibboleth Users nameidformatunspecified for relying party
› saml-nameid-format-error. I've been advised by our federation services team that the nameid-format should be set to unspecified.
The error I'm getting is: SAML SSO.
All Rights Reserved. That's twice now recently that I've had the list point out my stupid typos.
That would be an interesting bug.
All Answers 5. Presumably there should be a way to do this with the legacy V2 relying-party until then? RelyingPartyOverrides in our configs, so attempted the following in our relying-party.
Frequently Asked Questions
Currently it's transient, and the SP insists on unspecified. Contributor Author. Either there's a bug or I'm not seeing something, but nobody has identified any bugs I can find in JIRA after all this time.
This was referenced May 21, I don't know what to say to that except that I guess I don't feel like I should be spending my time creating it if people aren't going to use it. INFO Shibboleth.
While there could be any number of reasons for a mismatch, the most common by far is that you have https: endpoints in your metadata and your AuthnRequest was issued for return over http:or vice versa.
I would never deploy a NameID-valued Attribute anyway, so that's not at all a practical alternative that would be "better" than just producing a NameID in the Subject. Being out of position in the metadata tends not to matter as much to the IdP if it's not schema validating, but I would be surprised that quoting it like that worked.
nameidformatunspecified for relying party
Aside from pointing out the errors in the vendor's documentation, it convinced me to not rely on their documentation for a solution. You do NOT need to support that format. In reply to this post by Baron Fujimoto.
Saml nameid-format unspecified error
|That is only needed when using "unspecified", which you don't need, but But I know for absolute fact I'm using two different Formats with two different instances of it, and neither one is that Format.
If you insist on "unspecified", you need an override and nameIDFormatPrecedence, because that Format does not work with the first two mechanisms. You want to schedule moving off the V2 format reasonable expeditiously - if it isn't already it will be deprecated in the next minor release 3.
Video: Saml nameid-format unspecified error How-To Fix Quick Access "Unspecified Error" on Windows 10
Reload to refresh your session.