This Forum Is to Be Retired RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Has everybody noticed the announcement at the top of the question list?

    "This forum is scheduled to be retired on January 2, 2013. This forum will be locked;
    it will still be available for review in the Archived Forums folder. Threads that have been recently active in this forum will be moved to the .NET Base Class Library forum, to be renamed the “.NET Framework Base Classes and Libraries” forum. "

    The problem is that this forum is actually used for two "products" viz.

    Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS)
    Windows Identity Foundation (WIF)

    In  .NET 4.5, WIF was moved into the base classes but ADFS (which is a product - not a set of base classes) should be outside of this.

    Also, what about questions related to WIF issues pre. 4.5? They are not part of the base classes.

    My concern is that the ADFS and WIF questions are going to be lost among all the other "How do I compare two DateTime objects?" type questions?

    As per the announcement, "if you are a regular answerer to this forum and have questions about
    the changes, contact Visual Studio Forum Consolidation Questions."

    ADFS deserves it's own forum.

    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:57 PM

All replies

  • Consolidate!

    Channeling my inner Doctor Who.

    My guess is that it will merge into the DS forums on TechNet over time. I'm really annoyed by this actually. I quite like watching this forum, but won't be bothered to look at the BCL forum, because, well, there's just too much garbage in there that I can't be bothered to look at, let alone answer.

    I think WIF/ADFS do need to split, but I think sticking it into BCL is a bad idea.

    However with that being said, WIF will get a LOT more visibility if its in an often-visited forum.

    Developer Security MVP | www.syfuhs.net

    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:55 PM
  • Yeah that would be a bad idea to merge this forum with general .NET Framework. 

    I wrote an email to MS - see if that changes anything. If not we should re-org, maybe at Stack Overflow.

    Dominick Baier | thinktecture | | http://www.leastprivilege.com | @leastprivilege

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:38 AM
  • How ridiculous!

    We do need a dedicated ADFS forum.

    How hard can that be to do?

    IT Engineer currently working on implementing ADFS 2.0 in a corporate environment.

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:31 PM
  • BCL is not a good idea. But some traffic was already scattered over SharePoint and Office 360. See you back on Stackoverflow.

    So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

    Paul Lemmers

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:25 PM
  • Stack Overflow would be a good idea instead of BCL.

    Developer Security MVP | www.syfuhs.net

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:35 PM
  • Stack Overflow would be a good idea instead of BCL.

    Developer Security MVP | www.syfuhs.net

    Its time for an overhaul. The whole concept of the Geneva initiative has morphed - as you expect with a runaway success.

    if you look at all the samples, there are different styles within each - reflecting the sheer diversity you'd expect of something "this" big. That Geneva supports them all is a testament to thinking big, at the outset. It reminds of WCF - being a proper engineering of web methods, or the net socket libraries updating winsock, of .net crypto being a replacement for cryptoAPI (etc etc).

    There comes a point when you need real engineering for bridge building.

    Perhaps the WIF developer-centric stuff needs a non-MSDN forum. It can be something that should accommodate the ASP.NET angle on that, along with the weirdisms of WCF config or extensions.

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:48 PM
  • Good to see unanimous agreement!

    Send an email to Microsoft - the address is in my original question above.

    Those of you that are MVP's probably have other channels you could use?

    stackoverflow is a good idea but just to point out that stackoverflow is for programming questions.

    Questions like "How does OWA work with ADFS" i.e. configuration / implementation should be in serverfault and normally end up getting moved there.

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:06 PM
  • Well - ADFS is a Microsoft product - they have to provide support for that. Maybe this will happen in the AD related forums.

    But we definitely need a forum focused on "WIF" / .NET 4.5 Identity & Access Control. If this is not happening on MSDN - StackOverflow seems a good place. We just have to agree on a tag/tags.

    But let's wait some more days if there is any official word coming from Microsoft.

    Dominick Baier | thinktecture | | http://www.leastprivilege.com | @leastprivilege

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:09 PM
  • As a regular "lurker" on this forum, I too share this concern and contacted Microsoft.

    This forum is categorised as:

    NET Framework Forums>        

    Claims based access platform (CBA), code-named Geneva>

    and they are consolidating the .NET Framework Forums.

    So what forum category should ADFS be under?

    The list is here.

    The only one I can see that fits is "Windows Server". There doesn't seem to be one for AD?

    Wrt. WIF, do we need another new forum as per @Dominick for 4.5 and above?

    Where would WIF 1.0 sit?

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:15 PM
  • The WIF 1.0 question is important, for those NOT in the close to Microsoft club.

    WIF 1.0 had clearly wider scope than the dot Net framework integrated material. It clearly contemplated writing your own IP and ws-fed passive responder (in Asp.NEt script). this goal seems to have been lost in later thinking, which  may suit Microsoft product or service delivery planning ... but not the value-adding chain.

    Its solved by KEEPING wif 1.0 supported for some while (2 year)... even when working alongwide dot net 4.5 code. By that time, most folks in the "Value- adding business" will be over in the OAUTH camp anyways, leaving ws-fedp for enterprise, etc, where ADFS and AD-Azure will surely rule.

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:55 PM
  • I hope MS take note given the enormous contribution the above posters have been made to this forum. Like all concerned I hope ADFS and WIF get the appropriate recognition in the form of their own forums.

    Thanks to all of you for making this a great forum for learning and broadening our horizons. May it continue.



    Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:29 PM
  • Well, it's the 3rd and the move announcement went away.

    Did we win?

    Developer Security MVP | www.syfuhs.net

    Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:47 PM
  • I starter to think that the true "cause" of the desire to close it down is to "channel" public discussion on a sensitive topic.

    I was reading an announcement from Google, that their cloud (and websso stuff) has received "a" authority to operate, under the FISMA regulations. This is government speak, in the terms of the day (which change every 3 or 4 years), for accreditation/certification.

    Now, I was working a consultancy at another firm that was trying for the same thing, and I learned a lot (about the fudgery that goes on). Since the audit criteria are either not-finished or half-baked, and the auditors are now familiar, and there is no experience in producing peer-reviewable audit attestations, and the various non-defense govt agencies are still about as un-coordinated as they were in 1991, one learns that "a" authority may have actually been an "provisional" authority - granted under "special rules". THe special stuff is that perhaps your old SAS70audit substantiated the "half" authority.

    Of course, none of this is disclosed.

    Azure an Microsoft generally has to be in the same game (so it doesnt' lose to the faffy cloud id mgt providers, who get to do MUCH less work that is APPARENTLY required, were you play by the rules by how they are designed and marketed to the (duped) public). Since getting such privilege is a fair amount of politics (and how many ex govt employees have you hired), one needs "communication control". Only then is one allowed into the privileged club - getting the qudos without having to do the work.

    One of the most fun things I got to learn about, do such govt work again for the first time in years, is how dumbed down now is things like common criteria security profiles. Some of them are wonderfule sets of claims: they are really strict and appear hard to meet (but only assume that all employees are trusted, never non-malicious or incompenetent in practice, and systems are actually and alwas operated per their engineering specs). or course, like is easy under those id mgt conditions!

    There is a lot of posturing and politicking going on.

    Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:01 PM
  • Thanks for asking Microsoft to keep this forum, I am glad to see this one is still here. It would be nice to remove Geneva from the name at some point though.

    If this answers your question, please use the "Answer" button to say so | Ben Cline

    • Edited by Ben Cline1 Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:59 PM
    Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:58 PM
  • Maybe it's one of those hard-wired things, where you don't get to rename it once you've created it :-)

    Nice to see it's still up tho...

    Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:07 PM
  • Got some feedback from Microsoft:

    Basically, they are not going to merge the CBA forum into the .NET Framework one. They will probably create a new ADFS forum and merge this CBA one into there. 

    Details are still TBD.

    I'm still not clear if they are doing anything specific for WIF 4.5 but WIF 1.0 issues can still be posted here.

    So the forum still stays but the name may change some time in the future.

    Thanks to everyone for their feedback and submissions and thanks to Microsoft for keeping this forum.


    Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:35 PM