An open discussion list for topics related to the eduGAIN interfederation service.

[Leif Johansson <leifj AT sunet.se>]

On 2014-02-05 18:07, Peter Schober wrote:
> * Jan Tomášek <jan.tomasek AT cesnet.cz> [2014-02-05 17:37]:
>> And, is anywhere a list of national federations which are reasonably
>> broken? ;)
> I /think/ UKf and SWAMID are the only ones currently mixing in
> interfederation entities with their existing respective aggregates.

Maybe so but we're arguably among the federations that have the longest
experience with operating interfed in practice.

To clarify here is what we do: We offer two downstreams: one transitive
and one non-transitive (only registered entities) and tell our members
to choose one based on the nature of their service. Each has the
appropriate DS (in fact the transitive DS is something we share between
all the nordic federations)

We tried to do it the "other way" - separate downstreams - but found
that RPs don't understand how to handle that.

>
> I planned to do precicely that, too, but decided otherwise in the
> end. In part to avoid "surprising" outcome like this, even though
> others knew to "expect" this; in part because of all the things you
> should (re-)consider when (inter-)federating changing the metadata URL
> seemed the least problematic/difficult to me; in part because of the
> general reluctance I see in .at to join interfederation efforts,
> meaning I don't expect to export a significant percentage of our
> entities to eduGAIN anytime soon, and probably never for a 100% export
> (the UKf aim, AFAIU).
> But then again, the UKf has 20 times our number of entities to take
> care of. I guess that does change your view on what's achievable (and
> what "short term" means).
> -peter
>