- From: John Krienke <>
- To: <>
- Subject: Re: [inc-interfed] today's agenda
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:35:07 -0500
- Authentication-results: sfpop-ironport07.merit.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Agenda looks good to me, Jim.
If I can frame the right question about "good standing" below, it might be:
From the SP's perspective, what assurances are needed to trust an external (external to the SP's home federation) IdP?
These assurances should be expressed in the federation-to-federation agreement about the nouns (org, IdP endpoints, keys, etc expressed in IdP md) and verbs (its behavior).
On 3/5/13 12:24 PM, Jim Basney wrote:
What should be on the agenda for our interfed call today?
I think Paul Caskey will lead a discussion about the current status of
the Quilt work.
Then unless you propose other agenda items, I suggest we spend the
remaining time on refining our canonical interfederation use case and
identifying the hurdles we should tackle in the near term to achieve
some initial success with this use case.
I think the use case is:
An InCommon SP (example: LIGO wiki) accepts authentication from both
"international" IdPs (i.e., IdPs in other national federations) and
InCommon IdPs, where:
* The SP doesn't need to sign agreements with federations
other than InCommon.
* The SP gets all IdP metadata from InCommon.
* The SP registers its metadata with InCommon and doesn't
need to separately send its metadata elsewhere.
I suggest we put the inverse use case ("international" SP with InCommon
IdP) on the back burner at least for today.
* What are the minimal attribute requirements for
this use case? Just persistent user identifier?
* What are the minimal federation-to-federation agreements
needed for this use case?
- Permission for federations to re-publish entities
from each other's metadata.
- Agreement that federations at least verify DNS ownership
for registered entities. Is any "good standing" criteria
besides this truly required?
* Can we keep entity categories off the table for this initial use case
and deal with attribute release the old way?
* Can we keep LOA off the table for this initial use case?
- [inc-interfed] today's agenda, Jim Basney, 03/05/2013
- Re: [inc-interfed] today's agenda, John Krienke, 03/05/2013
- Re: [inc-interfed] today's agenda, Tom Scavo, 03/05/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.