InC-Lib-Vendor

[Andy Ingham <>]

Kent --

I think you make a very good point.  My sense is that our group should 
push for the adoption of the URL based naming over the URN based, for 
the reasons listed, especially, at the second URL you sent.

If others agree, I'd suggest that Kent work this into the Best Practices 
doc on the wiki...

(BTW, to give credit where it is due, the section that Kent is referring 
to was actually authored by Dave.)

It would be easy for me to adopt such a standard practice since I'm at 
the beginning of this process at my institution (and the institution 
itself is fairly new to Shib as well).

For those of you who have already set up connectivity based on URNs for 
entityIDs, any sense of much trouble it would be to retrospectively make 
the switch?

Andy

Kent Percival wrote:
> Andy has captured current practise in the Best Practises document, 
> including two forms of a URL providing direct access to a resource 
> without a WAYF re-direct.   I just wanted to check one thing that I had 
> a query on by another library supplier.
>
>  
>
> One of those forms, used by some vendors, includes entity names in URN 
> format (urn:mace: …) referring to Identity Provider entities.   At one 
> time MACE pushed the use of the more general URN format.  However more 
> recently the case is being made for the use of traditional URL 
> formats.   See
>
> https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/SHIB2/EntityNaming
>
> http://www.ukfederation.org.uk/content/Documents/EntityIDPolicy
>
>  
>
> In the Best Practise examples, I think the urn format exists only 
> because the example IdP was registered with the URN name  - it could 
> easily be replaced by a URL format name as registered by another 
> organization. 
>
>  
>
> That means that the SP service would have to handle both name 
> formats.      /right???/
>
>  
>
> /....Kent/
>
>  _
>
>