certsvc-review - RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey
Subject: Cert Service Webinar Evaluation
List archive
- From: Paul Caskey <>
- To: Paul Caskey <>, "Basney, Jim" <>
- Cc: Ann West <>, "" <>
- Subject: RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:20:26 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) ;
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
Sorry, forgot to include a URL for the survey at the top of the email. It’s here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/InCommon-certs From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Paul Caskey Thank you again, Jim, for the feedback. I made the suggested changes detailed below. The survey is now ready to go to the community, pending any last-minute changes that any of you think is needed. I will wait until tomorrow to send out the survey, so *please* take a look at it, if you haven’t already and let me know what you think. The survey will be sent under the auspices of this working group. Thank you all for your input! Changes made this morning (wording changes in
bold – new versions below): For non-subscribers: “Do you have any questions about, comments on, or features desired in the InCommon Certificate Service offering that could influence your decision to subscribe in the future?” “What is the most challenging part of certificate lifecycle management in your experience
with the InCommon Certificate Service? Please choose your top three.” “Federation/SSO for the Certificate Manager system
(RAO/DRAO access)” “Federation/SSO for the Certificate Manager system for User Certificate self-enrollment” From: Basney, Jim []
Right, since the user details (name, email) are already in our SAML assertions, no need to separately upload the user details to Comodo. Let the users log in
directly via SAML to get their user certs (i.e., like https://cilogon.org/ does). If you only want some users to be able to get certs, then define an eduPersonEntitlement for it. Using SAML authentication for certificate
issuance rather than email invitations significantly increases the level of assurance of the certificate, I think. On 11/17/15, 3:32 PM, Paul Caskey wrote:
|
- [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/13/2015
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Basney, Jim, 11/17/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/17/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Basney, Jim, 11/17/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, E Todd Atkins, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, E Todd Atkins, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, E Todd Atkins, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Basney, Jim, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/18/2015
- Re: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Basney, Jim, 11/17/2015
- RE: [CertSvc Review] feedback on survey, Paul Caskey, 11/17/2015
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.