Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Nick Roy <>]

+1

Nick

On 7/27/16, 11:07 AM, 
"
 on behalf of Tom Scavo" 
<
 on behalf of 
>
 wrote:

    On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Cantor, Scott 
<>
 wrote:
    > On 7/27/16, 11:57 AM, "Walter Forbes Hoehn (wassa)" 
<>
 wrote:
    >
    >> I just assumed it was a way to roll “current practice” into the 
protocol. At a practical
    >> level, I can’t imagine anyone computing the entire aggregate on a 
per-query basis.
    >
    > No, but that's kind of the point. Making it a requirement ties it to 
current practice, and there's also a slightly subtle issue: eventually the 
aggregate will grow to a size that makes signing it really painful for the 
same reason that we're engaged in this whole exercise.
    
    +1
    
    I don't expect Ian to run off and change the spec, however ;-) As
    Scott and others continue to observe, the discovery issue is still
    outstanding (although I don't necessarily assume a full aggregate is
    THE solution to discovery).
    
    I think our initial deployment of a MDQ server should not expose an
    "all entities" aggregate. I don't want deployers to migrate to the MDQ
    server for a full aggregate, I want deployers to migrate for
    per-entity metadata. Moreover, if we created an "all entities"
    aggregate on the MDQ server AND we introduce a new metadata signing
    key (like the UK federation is planning to do), then we would be
    forced to introduce a new aggregate up front (because the spec says
    so). Recall that Rhys would like to deliberately introduce a new
    aggregate (if at all). I totally agree with that sentiment. The spec
    shouldn't force a migration.
    
    Tom