...
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 | Scott Cantor, Ohio State | ||
| 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 | SP expectations | The 5th bullet on attribute requirements is probably a bit over-specified for contractually negotiated situations where specific data exchanged will depend on the customer and the particular relationship, and isn't usable ad hoc. Maybe wording allowing for "or as negotiated by contract". | Scott Cantor, Ohio State | |||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 |
See also:
InCommon Assurance Call of Nov 2015 on Baseline Practices
...