This page should be taken as nothing more than a spur to further discussion.

The Challenges

  • The REFEDs IOLR WG has developed a vetted list of requirements that an IdP would have to meet in order to serve the need for an Un-Affiliated IdP
  • The WG wants to define a standard process by which federations can assess candidate Un-Affiliated IdP providers and tag the approved Un-Affiliated IdPs.
  • The WG wants to assure the long-term stability of identifiers issued by Un-Affiliated IdP providers.
  • The WG wants to assure that a person always has the option to migrate from one Un-Affiliated IdP to another.
  • The WG wants to assure that Un-Affiliated IdP services are continuously available as long as they are filling a need for the Research and Scholarship community.

An Approach for Discussion

  • The REFEDS IOLR Working Group will draft and seek community evaluation of a REFEDS-level Un-Affiliated IdP entity category
  • The entity category tag will be defined as self-asserted
  • People should be encouraged to establish accounts with more than one self-declared Un-Affiliated IdP
  • The trustworthiness of self-asserted Un-Affiliated IdP tags should be addressed by the community of Refeds R&S relying parties in dialogue with Un-Affiliated IdP operators.

 

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. trscavo@internet2.edu

    eduGAIN will adopt the entity category and require member federations to abide by its terms

    Just wanted to add my two cents to this part of the discussion. eduGAIN is a service, not a federation. I would get nervous if eduGAIN were to inject metadata into its aggregate.

    I agree with Ian, REFEDS is the correct venue for discussing and/or standardizing entity categories.

  2. trscavo@internet2.edu

    I understand the goals outlined at the top of the document but I don't understand how you intend to achieve those goals. I think it's too early to be talking about "tagging an ORSID," or perhaps I missed part of the discussion.