InC-Lib-Vendor

["Kent Percival" <>]

I also thank Foster and Jonathan for this draft.  I agree it sets the right tone being brief and to the point. 

A few points for others to consider before call.

·         The first section sets a nice tone and doesn’t drill down to deep into Shibboleth technical points that that the initial responders may not be too familiar with.  Can we keep that level throughout.  Specifically, I’d like to avoid “WAYFless”.

·         The access mechanism is broader than just the WAYF.

o   Providers can explicitly list their customer sites, rather than use the generic home-institution search process (WAYF) for their general login to their search front end.  Is it important to us right now which way they do it?

o   Most (all) providers would offer a login function to their own search tools (general user front end) as a first implementation of Shibboleth.  Personalized services are provided on top of the full service access.  For this project are libraries interested in those sorts of functions now?  That seems to be beyond the scope of EZproxy integration.

o   We need to ask if they got to that starting point but the important question regarding EZproxy integration is that we want to ask is if they have implemented direct access with a single URL (deep linking?) to their database resources.
At this point we likely just want to find out if they have or are considering this direct access mechanism.  We can ask about their URL query format later to establish the level of standardization.

·         I’m a little bit leery about asking the providers for their expectations on the required attributes.  I expect they will ask for as much as they can.  I’d rather ask if they can provide the direct access to resources using a minimal set of attributes.
In Canada we are expecting institutions to be very circumspect about releasing identity information.  We’ve done a bit of planning around making the starting point a Pseudonymous identity with minimal attributes (just scoped affiliation).  We plan is to let the provider ask the user directly for more information if the user is willing to provide their information to personalize the service (e.g. the user can provide email address if they want things emailed to them).

 

 

 

 

....Kent

 _

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Andy Ingham [mailto:]

> Sent: June 26, 2009 09:06

> To: Jonathan Lavigne

> Cc:

> Subject: Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] Draft questionnaire for vendors

>

> Jon --

>

> I really like this.  I especially like that you've put the "what's in it

> for us" (the vendors) FIRST.

>

> Thanks, Foster, also for the document this came from.

>

> Andy

>

> Jonathan Lavigne wrote:

> > Everyone,

> >

> > I put up on the wiki an initial draft for a vendor questionnaire:

> >

> >    https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/inclibrary/Vendor+Questionnaire

> >

> > It's based on a longer document that Foster put together, which covered

> > not only vendors but also IdP admins and library tech staff. For our own

> > reference, Foster's original document is included as an attachment.

> >

> > Jon

> >