Interfederation

["Cantor, Scott" <>]

On 2/27/14, 12:55 AM, "Tom Scavo" 
<>
 wrote:
>
>Btw, staging InCommon metadata in this way has significant benefits.
>It essentially makes test IdPs a non-issue since presumably these
>would not be released to production metadata. It also makes it easy
>for participants to experiment with multiple IdPs, which is something
>we don't support very well today.

I think there's a disconnect in how I would have understood the preview
aggregate to work. I *never* considered it non-production in any sense. It
simply had newer production capabilities sooner than the regular one so
that software compatibility issues would be identifiable.

As you're describing it, I would never associate my SP with it, because
you're telling me it's not production. That's the opposite of what we
want. We want people with more risk tolerance to test new syntax out.

>Okay, that would be...interesting. What about the following
>compromise? What if we manually vet all *new* IdP metadata but let the
>chips fall where they may otherwise?

I'm not sure what you mean by "new" in that sentence. Or are you just
trying to distinguish SP from IdP?

-- Scott