InC Research Participants

[Paul Caskey <>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Koranda 
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 3:24 PM
> To: Paul Caskey 
> <>
> Cc: Tom Barton 
> <>;
>  participants-
> 
> Subject: Re: IdP discovery - list 'em all?
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> > The new/emerging baselines practices, in its current draft, will
> > require metadata accuracy, including contact addresses.
> 
> Will InCommon Operations be verifying the email addresses on a periodic
> basis to check the accuracy?

No.  That's a lot of work for a group that is already very 
resource-constrained.  This is based on trust and we trust participants to 
maintain accurate information, same as always.

> 
> > Now let the dialogue resume on what to do in cases on
> > continued non-compliance...   :)
> 
> I had hoped to hear at TechX a concrete proposal on non-compliance. Will
> that not be forthcoming?

Maybe, we still have a few weeks.  :)

> 
> As you know I am concerned that a baseline practice will not be a reality 
> until
> well into 2018, or even later. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
> 
> I know, as Tom Barton has said, that people want the baseline to happen, but
> I am keen to hear a date so that I can make decisions about where LIGO puts
> its efforts in mitigating risks to using federated identity via InCommon.
>
I am keen to hear a date as well.  I missed the last AAC call.  But, it's 
going to be a phased implementation.  In particular, any sanctions will be in 
the last phase.


 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott K for LIGO
> 
> >
> > Sorry if this has already been discussed, just joined this list a few
> > minutes ago (didn't know it existed)...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message----- From:
> > > 
> > > [ 
> > > ]
> > >  On Behalf Of
> > > Scott Koranda Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016
> > > 3:10 PM To: Tom Barton 
> > > <>
> > >  Cc:
> > > 
> > >  Subject: Re: IdP discovery - list
> > > 'em all?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thinking about it from the other direction, can we learn from the
> > > InCommon people on the list what processes are in place now or in
> > > the future to find and fix contact email addresses in metadata (for
> > > InCommon Participants) that bounce?
> > >
> > > It seems less than optimal to have users working through failed
> > > authentication flows with SPs as the only mechanism for finding
> > > problems with contact email addresses.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Scott K for LIGO
> > >
> > > > I'm interested to understand, if possible, what impedes resolution
> > > > when the user is given a reasonable error message and an email
> > > > address to communicate with about it (Jim, you said this has
> > > > *never* yet been successful, I think - yikes).
> > > >
> > > > Which address(es) is the user provided for contacting their IdP
> > > > operator?  And what message text are they given in hopes that the
> > > > two will lead to resolution? Are those presented as "press here to
> > > > send this message to these addresses" or as instruction to send a
> > > > message to those addresses including the suggested text, or
> > > > something else?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Tom
> > > >
> > > > On 9/1/2016 2:37 PM, Basney, Jim wrote:
> > > > >On 9/1/16, 12:32 PM, Tom Mitchell wrote:
> > > > >>Yes, I like this. This allows a user to recognize that their
> > > > >>institution needs to do some work to support their research
> > > > >>goals, and possibly causes them to request of their institution
> > > > >>that they support these categories.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Taking the other approach, where the identity provider doesn't
> > > > >>show up in discovery, will probably make the user go away or use
> > > > >>an unaffiliated identity provider for access. It does nothing to
> > > > >>prompt the identity provider to support these categories.
> > > > >Agreed. It helps when the contact email addresses in IdP metadata
> > > > >don't bounce. I learned today that one of the downsides of having
> > > > >the user send the email to their IdP operators is they give up
> > > > >when the email
> > > bounces...
> > > > >Good thing we have the user also CC us so we can follow-up.
> > > > >
> > > > >FWIW, I've reported the bouncing contact email addresses in
> > > > >InCommon metadata to 
> > > > >.
> > > > >
> > > > >-Jim
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >