...
Change Proposals and Feedback - We welcome your feedback/suggestions in this table
If you have comments that do not lend themselves well to the tabular format below, please create a new Google doc and link to it in the suggestion column.
Number | Current Text | Feedback / Proposed Text / Query / Suggestion | Proposer | +1 (add your name | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IdP expectations | I'd swap expectation 1 and 2 | Thomas Lenggenhager, SWITCH | |||
| 2 | IdP expectations | Add something like: The IdP only asserts faculty, staff and student affiliations backed by proper on- and off-boarding processes | Thomas Lenggenhager, SWITCH | Mikael Linden, CSC | ||
| 3 | IdP expectations #1 | The approach may work for staff, faculty and students but my experience is that even trustworthy IdPs have also users (industry partiers, library walk-in, ...) whose accounts are less secure and wouldn't have access to the key enterprise systems. To make #1 useful for SPs, maybe introduce a tag for the trustworthy accounts (to enable SP side filtering) or make it explicit that #1 applies only to accounts with eP(S)A=staff, faculty or student (c.f. the comment above from Thomas). | Mikael Linden, CSC | |||
| 4 | IdP expectations | The word "institution" should be replaced by the word "organization" to be inclusive of organizations that operate IdPs and that are not institutions, such as LIGO. | Scott Koranda, LIGO | |||
| 5 | ||||||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 |
See also:
InCommon Assurance Call of Nov 2015 on Baseline Practices
...