Interfederation

["Cantor, Scott" <>]

On 2/28/14, 5:04 PM, "Tom Scavo" 
<>
 wrote:
>
>Okay, I understand the point you're trying to make. So you're saying
>you don't agree with the use of the preview aggregate as it's
>currently used by UKf, right?

If that's the case, then I don't favor that, no. If nothing else, I think
it means changing the way we would explain the preview aggregate and the
sorts of systems that would be suitable to use it, and it would conflate
some goals for the aggregates that I think are better distinct.

Whatever concerns we have with entities, I want to tag them to address
them.

>No, I don't think that will ever happen. There's no way that an entity
>imported from eduGAIN can ever satisfy the (unwritten) InCommon
>Metadata Registration Practice Statement since the latter begins at
>the time an organization signs the Participation Agreement.

Sure, but I meant in spirit and in terms of effort and the type of
relationship we'd be having with the imported systems. I know that in
practice it would never be exactly like actual membership.

>Oh yes, I fully expect to "drop entities on the floor" (to use Ian's
>term). The only question is how aggressive do we want (or need) to be.

Sure. I just mean that if we're only dropping them, with no follow up,
then there's no point in putting them anywhere. The worst thing would be
to expose them in one aggregate and then create an expectation around
that, and then you pull them out.

-- Scott