Interfederation

[Scott Koranda <>]

Hi,

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jim Basney 
> <>
>  wrote:
> > I added a new section at
> > https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/incinterfed/Interfederation+Lessons+Learned
> > about opt-out / opt-in to try to capture the group discussions. Feel
> > free to edit. We'll pick up the discussion on our next call, but in the
> > mean time please don't hesitate to continue discussing via the mailing 
> > list.
> 
> I understand Scott's viewpoint. He's essentially said the same thing
> many times in the past. I don't disagree.
> 
> (As an aside, about half of the R&S SPs expose all InCommon IdPs on
> their discovery interface. One in particular, GENI, is driving IdPs to
> support R&S. Every time Tom Mitchell sees a federated transaction
> fail, both of us gang up on the IdP in question. Together we've
> transitioned many IdPs to R&S. I wish all R&S SPs did the same thing.)

LIGO is attempting to do the same thing. I recently copied you
on my email exchange with Stanford.

Frankly, I would like to see InCommon push even harder by
having steering send a note to CIOs encouraging them to
support R&S.

> 
> Applying Scott's general strategy to the LIGO use case, why not do the
> following:
> 
> - The LIGO SP directly consumes a UKF metadata aggregate (like it does now)
> - The Cardiff IdP directly consumes the InCommon metadata aggregate
> (no special "export aggregate" needed)
> 
> And we're done. I can imagine some minor optimizations to the above
> model but that's basically it.
> 
> I'm not suggesting this lightly. I'm asking a real question that has
> bothered me for some time. What value can InC Ops add to the UKF
> aggregate? Likewise, if we adopt Scott's all-inclusive point of view,
> why would InC Ops want to create a special "export aggregate" for
> interfederation purposes?
> 

I won't repeat Ian and Scott C's answers but simply add that I
strongly agree with them.

Thanks,

Scott K