Interfederation

[Tom Scavo <>]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Scott Koranda 
<>
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Tom Scavo 
> <>
>  wrote:
>>
>> * In item 1a, it is not clear to me that we actually need agreements
>> with *both* eduGAIN *and* the UK federation. As I understand it, the
>> UKf is currently working on importing to (and exporting from) eduGAIN
>> metadata. If so, why do we need a separate agreement with UKf? Isn't
>> that what eduGAIN is for?
>
> I disagree. We need agreements with both eduGAIN and the UK federation.

I'm not convinced...

> Joining eduGAIN and making that framework useful for InCommon members
> like LIGO is a process. The end result will be fantastic but will take
> time. Surely there will be a number of issues to work through and
> because of the relatively large number of eduGAIN participants, many
> with divergent views, it will take time to work through those issues.

I'm not sure why you think eduGAIN is so onerous. The standard
agreement that paves the way for participation in eduGAIN is
relatively tame. I'd almost call it low-hanging fruit (which is why
I'm focusing on eduGAIN).

> In the meantime a bilateral agreement with the UK is immediately
> beneficial. The pilot projects already underway between LIGO and
> Cardiff (and now Glasgow) have been extremely helpful in driving work
> forward and helping both sides of the project raise awareness "up the
> food chain" of the benefits of federated identity and international
> interfederation.

If Cardiff metadata ends up in the eduGAIN aggregate, and InCommon
consumes eduGAIN metadata, why do we need a separate agreement with
UKf?

> I value the bilateral work that has already been done between InCommon
> and the UK federation and would like to see it formalized so that we
> can continue to move forward and explore the space.

Are you referring to the side project that you and Steven took on
previously? That's fine, but that's not the next step. To
interfederate with UKf, we need an agreement with UKf (which is what
step 1a is asking for) but such an agreement is clearly *much more
work* than joining eduGAIN, so I really think we should concentrate on
the latter. You (LIGO) end up at the same place, in a significantly
shorter period of time. Why not go the eduGAIN route? I'm not seeing
the disadvantages.

Tom