LTI 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 2.0 implementations

[Tape]

This is definitely a very long term issue, but a few final drafts of the spec have been published (most notably LTI 2.0). It would be cool to implement them. The main issue I foresee here is that very very few platforms actually use any other version than 1.0 as of now, so there's not very many things to test against.

http://www.imsglobal.org/lti/

• 1.0
• 1.1 - 1.1 and 1.1.1 compliance #19
• 1.1.1 - 1.1 and 1.1.1 compliance #19
• 2.0

[omsmith]

Yeah, I'd looked at it briefly. Between proxies and storing tool settings on the consumer and all that, it's a must more pervasive situation than just checking signatures. Would need to figure out where to draw the lines between ideally separate modules that can be easily used together.

[Tape]

I've been taking a look at the implementation guides for 1.1 and 1.1.1 and it looks like those are fully backwards compatible, they actually use the same version string. What we could do is add additional boolean flags and whatnot onto the existing base to check if the new functionality exists. The only real new items are the gradebook feature and the role_scope_mentor param. I'll look into implementing these, they look pretty basic.

[Tape]

Seeing as how 1.2 is still in a draft state and all it really adds is transitionary structures for 2.0 I'd say we can drop that from the list.

[jinpa]

I'm trying to pick a stack for building LTI components, and am only just starting to learn about this space. It looks like since this discussion, the LTI 2.0 spec has been finalized. Are there plans to build support for that into this library? If so, is there a rough expected timeframe? Thanks!

[Tape]

Hi there! Sorry for the slow response. We do have plans to eventually support it, but the adoption rate is fairly low at this time. There is not many new features right now and most of the vendor extensions are implemented using the 1.x specification. The next step would probably be to implement 1.2 since it is a transition version to 2.0.

I can safely say though if the adoption rate increases 2.0 will definitely be implemented.

[octavpo]

I'd also be very interested to see this library work with LTI 2.0 soon. Moodle is working on implementing it, we'd want to start using it as soon as it's ready, so it would be great if we had a library readily available. If you need a test site, Sakai says they've already implemented it since version 10.0. Thanks.

[jasonfill]

Is there any update as to the status of 2.0? We would be willing to help some of the development on it, but I was curious if anything has started to this point.

[rodneytamblyn]

+1 on LTI 2. There's a dearth of LTI 2 libraries at the moment. I'd willing to sponsor work in this area to see progress. Moodle and Blackboard are both supporting LTI 2 now.