InCommon Technical Discussions

[David Langenberg <>]

Perhaps this is better solved then by standing up a 2nd hub and spoke style 
service?  The VOs would use that one.  The 100 or so who “get it” would see 
no difference.  The 300 ‘others’ would also be able to interop just fine, but 
their users would be stopped at the federation IdP to self-assert missing 
attributes?

Dave

-- 
David Langenberg
Asst Director, Identity Management
The University of Chicago

On 3/30/17, 7:44 AM, "Scott Koranda" 
<>
 wrote:

    > What’s the underlying use-case driving this proposal?  Are you trying
    > to lessen the experience for the 300 in hopes they join the 100?  Are
    > you trying to show vendors / other VOs the value prop by saying, “Look
    > at these 100 places you can easily work with?” Is this really more
    > about making your discovery interface automatically/easily
    > include/exclude IdPs that meet “best practices”? Personally, I don’t
    > think dividing InC into multiple federations/aggregates is the right
    > answer, house divided and such, so I’m trying to understand what’s so
    > impossibly horrible about the state of things today that the answer is
    > to basically start over?
    > 
    
    Hi,
    
    Leveraging InCommon to support large research projects that scale across
    many institutions, such as LIGO, is difficult and takes a large
    investment that many projects cannot or will not make. Few do so today.
    
    The evidence for that is well known and accepted. I will not repeat it 
here. 
    
    I think that InCommon has the potential to be the de-facto substrate for
    identity management for research projects in the US, but it is unable to
    realize that potential so far. Attribute release has long been the
    primary concern. Despite more than 5 years of effort (yes, it really has
    been that long since the R&S entity category was proposed) only 140 or
    so campuses participate, and many of those (82) will not release 
attributes
    to SPs not published by InCommon.
    
    I am attempting to provide "food for thought". Take it as you will.
    
    Scott K for LIGO

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature