Interfederation

[Tom Scavo <>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Cantor, Scott 
<>
 wrote:
> On 4/30/13 5:08 PM, "Tom Scavo" 
> <>
>  wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps, but I don't see much point exporting 1100 SPs, the vast
>>majority of which are non-federating. The best estimate we have of
>>federating SPs is R&S, that is, 12 SPs. If there are more, they should
>>be applying for R&S (which has a fairly low bar).
>
> While I agree that in principle opt-in for SPs is probably workable, I do
> object to "people are using InCommon for non-federated SPs" as a
> justification not to publish them. If you don't want to be published,
> don't register your metadata.

That's not the point I was trying to make (and I think you know that :)

> But I don't think I should have be R&S in order to interfederate as an SP.

I didn't say that, but what evidence do we have that there are more
than 12 federated SPs in InCommon metadata. Am I missing something?

>>Turning this around, consuming SP metadata is problematic because
>>imported SPs will not be bound by our Participation Agreement, and
>>therefore will lack any sort of privacy consideration (although I
>>admit what's currently in the PA is fairly benign).
>
> It's only problematic if we don't have a way identify the SPs that have
> agreed to it.

We don't, and that's another take-away from this subgroup: We have a
lot more work to do with respect to tagging entities in metadata.

Tom