edugain-discuss AT lists.geant.org
Subject: An open discussion list for topics related to the eduGAIN interfederation service.
List archive
- From: Glenn Wearen <glenn.wearen AT heanet.ie>
- To: Leif Johansson <leifj AT sunet.se>
- Cc: REFEDS <refeds AT terena.org>, "edugain-discuss AT geant.net" <edugain-discuss AT geant.net>
- Subject: Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] mari plan & next steps
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:49:01 +0000
- List-archive: <https://mail.geant.net/mailman/private/edugain-discuss/>
- List-id: eduGAIN discussion list <edugain-discuss.geant.net>
I think the ship has sailed on harmonisation so this proposal sounds good to
me
Glenn
> On 29 Oct 2014, at 14:48, Leif Johansson <leifj AT sunet.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> A few of us met at ACAMP in Indianapolis yesterday to talk about the
> meta attribute work. I'll attempt to sum up and outline the plan that
> we agreed on in the meeting:
>
> Problem statement
> -----------------
>
> There are several policy framework in use today that rely on the use
> of RequestedAttribute metadata elements to signal attribute requirements
> from the SP to the IdP. This works well within federations but often
> break down when an SP needs to talk to IdPs belonging to multiple
> federations.
>
> Experience from SPs that have begun to suck at the fire hose of
> interfederation seems to be that as the number of federations grow, the
> list of RequestedAttribute elements grow to the union of what is needed
> to fulfil the recommendations and practice of all federations.
>
> At best this violates the minimality principle and at worst causes
> breakage since the RequestedAttribute practice of one federation is
> often incompatible with that of the next federation. Experience shows
> that breakage occurs after only a small number of connected
> federations (I have example breakage at <3 federations).
>
> The reason the problem occurs is that federations don't agree on the
> semantic and use of attributes. Furthermore it seems unlikely that
> we'll be able to align attribute semantics globally.
>
> However we can introduce an additional level of indirection (which as
> we all know solves any problem in computer science).
>
> Proposal
> --------
>
> Introduce a new "meta" attribute NameFormat [1] with roughly the
> following semantics:
>
> When present in a RequestedAttribute element for instance like this:
>
> <RequestedAttribute
> NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:meta" Name="foo" />
>
> which requests release of the 'foo' attribute, the IdP releases one
> or more "regular" oid-based attributes on the wire which corresponds
> to 'foo' according to the accepted practice of the IdP.
>
> Each meta attribute type (eg 'foo') will have its own spec that
> describes the span of possible alternative ways it can be translated
> to wire-format attributes.
>
> For instance the 'name' meta attribute will probably be speced to
> translate into something like "givenName & sn" and/or "displayName"
> and/or "cn".
>
> Under this scheme the SP will have to be able to handle a large
> number of alternative ways to represent "name" but this is already
> the case and is unlikely to change no matter what we do.
>
> Next Steps
> ----------
>
> 0. Validate the idea with implementers. Scott seems to believe that
> it is implementable in Shib 2 and 3. I have and AI to go and talk to
> SSP and Roland will "cover" pysaml2 as usual
>
> 1. Do a writeup of the proposal and (probably) bring it to OASIS
> for standardization as this is the recognized remit for SAML.
>
> 2a. Socialize the specification(s) among deployers and try to do
> a pilot implementation within (say) Kalmar2.
>
> 2b. Take the spec to edugain-steering to get it adopted as the
> way to do attribute management in edugain.
>
> Cheers Leif
>
> [1] probably something like urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:meta
>
>
>
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] Re: mari plan & next steps, (continued)
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] Re: mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] Re: mari plan & next steps, Leif Johansson, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Leif Johansson, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Jaime Pérez Crespo, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Jaime Pérez Crespo, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Jaime Pérez Crespo, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Leif Johansson, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Jaime Pérez Crespo, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] mari plan & next steps, Leif Johansson, 29-Oct-2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] mari plan & next steps, Glenn Wearen, 10/29/2014
- Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] [refeds] Re: mari plan & next steps, Peter Schober, 29-Oct-2014
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.