Assurance

[Paul Caskey <>]

Hi Steve-

Thanks for your feedback!

I just have a couple of comments.

First, there really was never a standard for the POP.  That's a lot of the 
problem.  We did provide a template file, but it was nothing more than a 
suggestion and several did not use it.  So, IMHO, the notion of "the level of 
the POP" is not really there.

Second, there will definitely be things (a.k.a. trustmarks) built on top of 
the baseline.  Two that I think we need to consider are: ePPN/UID 
non-reassignment and Timely/Accurate eduPersonAffiliation.


Thanks again for the feedback!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> 
>  [
> ]
>  On Behalf Of Steven Carmody
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:40 AM
> To: 
> 
> Subject: Re: [Assurance] Feedback desired on Baseline Exceptions for Trust
> in Federation
> 
> On 7/7/16 9:54 AM, Christopher A Spadanuda wrote:
> >
> > To inform changes InCommon might make to the status quo the AAC took a
> > step back and decided to try to express, in simple and straightforward
> > language, what those who rely on federation expect of themselves and
> > of their federation partners.
> 
> This approach is a huge improvement over the current, rather outdated,
> approach of asking sites to publish a POP containing text.
> 
> However, this profile contains the word BASELINE in its title; I'm also 
> struck
> that it doesn't include mention of some items that were supposed to be
> included in a POP statement. The obvious examples are already called out in
> the feedback (eg #7, 8,9).
> 
> Once this Baseline profile is promulgated, is the AAC planning to develop
> additional profiles layered on top of the Baseline ? Trustmarks of some 
> sort ?
> Should the community push to raise the proposed Baseline at least to the
> level of the POP, or even to a "reasonable level for today's world" ?
> 
> Or should we wait for the follow on set of profiles ? If this is the case, 
> has the
> AAC begun to think about what that set of profiles might be ?
> 
> thanks !
> 
> 
>