Alternative IdP Working Group

[Janemarie Duh <>]

On 08/25/2014 02:50 PM, Tom Scavo wrote:
> I finally figured out what was bothering me about the Alternative IdP
> Strategies and Assessment Criteria table. [1] There's significant
> redundancy in that table, such that investigators will end up
> reinventing the wheel multiple times.
> 
> Take the "Support for ECP" column, for example. Any row that relies on
> Shibboleth will come to the same conclusion regarding ECP. How
> Shibboleth is deployed doesn't alter the fact that Shibboleth the
> implementation supports ECP. Same is true of any other SAML
> implementation---either the implementation supports ECP or not.
> 
> Now repeat the above argument for every "implementation detail"
> referred to (directly or indirectly) in the column header.

Tom,
     I see what you are saying here but I don't know if that's a
problem, yet. But if our focus is off, I'd like to correct that. See my
additional responses below.

> 
> It seems our focus should be on deployment strategies (not
> implementation details). InCommon already has a set of Software
> Guidelines [2] so I'm not sure we want to go there. In any case, I
> think the deployment characteristics of each IdP strategy are most
> important.
> 

     Could you please define deployment vs. implementation? Would the
deployment details be less technical and more with fitting a solution
into an existing, or non-existent, IdMS? That might lead, then, to
adding columns describing what each strategy would require in a design
for a supporting IdMS in order to be deployed.

             Janemarie

> Tom
> 
> [1] https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/FgrkAg
> [2] https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/R4HPAg
> 


-- 
Janemarie Duh
Identity Management Systems Architect
Information Technology Services
Lafayette College
Easton, PA 18042
610-330-5609
http://its.lafayette.edu

ITS will never ask you for your password. Never email your password to
anyone.