InCommon Library Services

[Foster Zhang <>]

Andy,

Good points. 

... the "hybrid" approach provides the most obvious way to 
navigate the LONG transition, resource by resource, from "entirely" 
proxy-based to "entirely" Shibboleth-based.

Also from entirely IP-based to Shibboleth-based.

Foster Zhang
JHU Library systems

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Ingham [] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 09:15
To: NODA Hideaki
Cc: Dale,Andy; inc-librsvcs
Subject: Re: [inc-librsvcs] Fwd: EZProxy v. Shibboleth?

Hideaki --

I would add the two other significant potential advantages that come to 
mind:

-- the ability to STOP managing IP address ranges (especially trying to 
keep them up-to-date and synced across hundreds of vendors),

-- the ability to provide a solution that can work (assuming the 
"discovery problem" is handled) from the "open web" (think Google search 
results) that DON'T contain, and don't have to contain, an 
EZproxy-prefix in order for a legitimate user to get properly authorized 
for a restricted resource.  Increasingly, we must appreciate that users 
don't wish to have their access mediated through the library's pages 
(where EZproxy-prefixes can be added).


We believe that the "hybrid" approach provides the most obvious way to 
navigate the LONG transition, resource by resource, from "entirely" 
proxy-based to "entirely" Shibboleth-based.

Andy

Andy Ingham
Assistant Head, Library Systems
University Library
UNC-Chapel Hill
919-962-1288


Dale,Andy wrote:
> Dear Hideaki,
> 
> The main issues driving my desire to see wider adoption of Shibboleth
> (or some other form of federated identity) in place of EZProxy are the
> demands put on the system by rich media. 
> 
> By rich media I mean everything from content providers who want to use
> flash, AJAX or other complex client processing to provide rich discovery
> services. To the delivery of audio books and movies directly to the
> patron. In the first case most proxies (not just EZProxy) have limited
> support for these rich user interfaces; we are close to the limit of our
> ability to rewrite content as it passes through the proxy. In the second
> case passing large media files, like movies, through proxies is
> inefficient and rapidly becoming untenable. 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Andy Dale
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:45 PM
> To: inc-librsvcs
> Subject: [inc-librsvcs] Fwd: EZProxy v. Shibboleth?
> 
> some people on this list may have info to share..... you probably 
> have to respond directly....
> 
> pls CC this list if you do respond...thanks!
> 
>> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:03:02 +0000
>> From: NODA Hideaki <>
>> Subject: EZProxy v. Shibboleth?
>> To: 
>>
>> Dear all;
>>
>>   Our UPKI-fed, the Japanese access management federation, regards
> that
>> SSO for e-resources is the most persuasive merit of Shibboleth for
> librarians.
>> However, we feel some difficulties to promote our federation only with
> this
>> insistence.
>>   As same as in UK, there are many universities in Japan which
>> use EZProxy as a tool of  SSO for their libraries' e-resources.
>> Considering Shibboleth as a tool for SSO, some of them claim that
>> it is difficult to find any significant advantage over their
>> EZProxy-based SSO systems.
>>
>>   Then, how do you think the merit / demerit of...
>>
>> 1) Shibboleth-only SSO service,
>> 2) Non-Shibbolized EZProxy-based SSO,
>> 3) Hybrid SSO with Shibboleth and Shibbolized EZProxy ?
>>
>> Please show us your opinions.
>>
>>   Best wishes;
>>
>>   Hideaki
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> NODA, Hideaki
>>
>> Chiba University Library
>>     Public service division.
>> Tel: (+81)43 290 2258
>> Fax: (+81)43 290 2266
>> Mail: 
>> -------------------------
>>   http://www.ll.chiba-u.ac.jp/
>>   http://mitizane.ll.chiba-u.jp/curator/
> 
> 
> 
>