Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Nick Roy <>]

Well, what if it was an IdP-only aggregate, as Ian says, advertised as solely 
for discovery?  SPs are probably a lot more likely to be more 
resource-constrained, and they will need this to solve the discovery problem 
for some time to come regardless of the availability of a production 
per-entity metadata service.

Nick

> On Aug 8, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Walter Forbes Hoehn (wassa) 
> <>
>  wrote:
> 
> If an SP-only aggregate were available, I’d certainly make use of it 
> immediately. I agree with Ian in terms of the potential for a move like 
> this to negatively impact MDQ adoption in the short term. A related concern 
> is the possible perception, with an announcement of this change just prior 
> to announcements related to MDQ, that we are just throwing things against 
> the wall to see what sticks. I guess that comes down to how/whether the new 
> aggregate is advertised.
> 
> -WFH
> 
> 
>> On Aug 7, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Tom Scavo 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> As an interim measure (while per-entity metadata distribution is
>> spinning up), some folks have suggested that Ops split the main
>> InCommon aggregate into smaller SP and IdP aggregates and distribute
>> each separately. Is such a strategy advisable?
>> 
>> Tom
>