Interfederation

[Scott Koranda <>]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Tom Scavo 
<>
 wrote:
> 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.
>

Hi Tom,

InCommon joining eduGAIN is only useful to LIGO at the point that
international IdPs release a persistent identifier to all of our SPs
published in InCommon without LIGO having to take any extra steps.

I am not confident that happens immediately upon InCommon becoming an
eduGAIN participant.

I see the InCommon and UK interfederation as another vehicle for
pursuing interfederation and exploring the space--a vehicle that will
be much more flexible and nimble.

If I am wrong and InCommon joining eduGAIN is quick and leads quickly
to what we need that is great. I simply do not want to put all my eggs
in that basket and would like to continue to build on the work Steven,
Ian, and LIGO have done.

Thanks,

Scott K