Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

interfed - Re: [inc-interfed] Kicking off Phase 2 of Interfed

Subject: Interfederation

List archive

Re: [inc-interfed] Kicking off Phase 2 of Interfed


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Ian Young <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: [inc-interfed] Kicking off Phase 2 of Interfed
  • Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:28:03 +0100

Here's I'm replying to the non-UKf/InCommon parts.

On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:36, Tom Scavo
<>
wrote:

> * Regarding item 1b, the first two sub-bullets suggest there's some
> interactive process that will lead to the required documentation. If
> so, then I don't understand what's being suggested since Ops is the
> sole proprietor of the "trust practices and policies for entity
> registration and publishing" (whatever that turns out to be).

I agree that initial documentation of current practices should be Ops-only
(or certainly primarily an Ops task), and that's how I read the text. I
should also add that in the UKf context, I certainly didn't feel I needed
higher guidance to write our initial MDRPS.

It's hard to do that, though, without starting a discussion about what the
practices *should* be, particularly if the aim is to produce a policy
document which InCommon publishes essentially as a promise that will be
relied on by federation partners. There I think it is very appropriate for
other groups to be involved.

> * Item 1c should simply be deleted since REFEDs is in the final stages
> of developing a CoC entity category:
>
> https://refeds.terena.org/index.php/Entity_Category_CoC
>
> The deadline for comments on this proposed entity category is Oct 2
> (just like the REFEDs R&S Category).

I'd be in favour of not counting those chickens just yet. It may make more
sense to reword to say "Engage in the development and adoption of…" or
similar.

If it turns out to be a done deal in a week, fine; we can declare victory
early. I'm not actually expecting that to be the case, though, particularly
on the adoption side, so I'd prefer to keep this on the group's agenda until
we can see that it no longer requires input.

> * Item 1d is not anything this WG can do. Only Ops can prioritize such work.

Yes, it would make sense for that to be rephrased to indicate that the
subcommittee's role is to recommend and assist, except for pilot projects.

-- Ian



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page