Microsoft Entra ID

Plan your SSO integration with Microsoft Entra ID (ISVs)

26 August 2026Doc update+6 / −6 lines

In brief

The page title now says “Microsoft Entra ID,” and several table separators were reformatted for consistent Markdown presentation.

What Entra admins need to know

No administrator action is required; the documented SSO guidance is otherwise unchanged.

This editorial summary was generated by AI from the documentation changes. Verify important details in the full Microsoft Learn article.

Documentation change

View full page diff

View on Microsoft Learn

The comparison below shows only the changed extract. Use the full-page view for complete context.

title: Plan your SSO integration with Microsoft Entra ID (ISVs) description: High-level planning and decision guide for Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) preparing to integrate single sign-on (SSO) with Microsoft Entra ID.

author: omondiatieno Confirm these application design choices before validation.

Readiness item	Why it matters
Multitenant model confirmed	The Microsoft Entra app gallery only accepts multitenant applications.
Application architecture defined (web, SPA, mobile, or API)	Architecture determines which authentication flows apply.
Authentication flows identified and aligned with architecture	Misaligned flows cause validation failures.
Confirm your protocol choice and its implications.

Readiness item	Why it matters
OIDC default confirmed or business reason documented for SAML	OIDC is the recommended default; deviations need justification.
Protocol choice aligns with application architecture	SPAs and mobile apps require OIDC.
Protocol-specific implications understood for your application type	Avoids late-stage redesign during validation.
Review the onboarding and configuration experience for customers.

Readiness item	Why it matters
Configuration values categorized as fixed or customer-specific	Drives onboarding instructions and tenant model.
Onboarding process designed to minimize customer complexity	Lower friction improves tenant admin adoption.
Claims and identity data requirements defined and tested	Prevents authorization mismatches at runtime.
Confirm validation and publishing readiness.

Readiness item	Why it matters
Gallery publishing requirements reviewed early in development	Avoids rework before submission.
Validation impact of design decisions considered	Some decisions block validation entirely.
Sign-out and session management approach planned	Required for compliance and a clean user experience.
Complete this final check before you start validation.

Readiness item	Why it matters
All critical decisions documented and justified	Speeds support handoffs and reduces rework.
Test ID validation pathway confirmed	Required before entering the publishing flow.
Rework risk assessed and minimized	Final go / no-go gate before validation.

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ ----title: Plan your SSO integration with Microsoft Entra (ISVs)+title: Plan your SSO integration with Microsoft Entra ID (ISVs) description: High-level planning and decision guide for Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) preparing to integrate single sign-on (SSO) with Microsoft Entra ID.  author: omondiatieno@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ Use the following tables to confirm you're ready for validation and gallery publ Confirm these application design choices before validation.  | Readiness item | Why it matters |-|---|---|+| --- | --- | | Multitenant model confirmed | The Microsoft Entra app gallery only accepts multitenant applications. | | Application architecture defined (web, SPA, mobile, or API) | Architecture determines which authentication flows apply. | | Authentication flows identified and aligned with architecture | Misaligned flows cause validation failures. |@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ Confirm these application design choices before validation. Confirm your protocol choice and its implications.  | Readiness item | Why it matters |-|---|---|+| --- | --- | | OIDC default confirmed *or* business reason documented for SAML | OIDC is the recommended default; deviations need justification. | | Protocol choice aligns with application architecture | SPAs and mobile apps require OIDC. | | Protocol-specific implications understood for your application type | Avoids late-stage redesign during validation. |@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ Confirm your protocol choice and its implications. Review the onboarding and configuration experience for customers.  | Readiness item | Why it matters |-|---|---|+| --- | --- | | Configuration values categorized as fixed or customer-specific | Drives onboarding instructions and tenant model. | | Onboarding process designed to minimize customer complexity | Lower friction improves tenant admin adoption. | | Claims and identity data requirements defined and tested | Prevents authorization mismatches at runtime. |@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ Review the onboarding and configuration experience for customers. Confirm validation and publishing readiness.  | Readiness item | Why it matters |-|---|---|+| --- | --- | | Gallery publishing requirements reviewed early in development | Avoids rework before submission. | | Validation impact of design decisions considered | Some decisions block validation entirely. | | Sign-out and session management approach planned | Required for compliance and a clean user experience. |@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ Confirm validation and publishing readiness. Complete this final check before you start validation.  | Readiness item | Why it matters |-|---|---|+| --- | --- | | All critical decisions documented and justified | Speeds support handoffs and reduces rework. | | Test ID validation pathway confirmed | Required before entering the publishing flow. | | Rework risk assessed and minimized | Final go / no-go gate before validation. |