Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

edugain-discuss - Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] Entity category support attribute for Data Protection CoCo?

edugain-discuss AT lists.geant.org

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

List archive

Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] Entity category support attribute for Data Protection CoCo?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Peter Schober <peter.schober AT univie.ac.at>
  • To: edugain-discuss AT geant.net
  • Subject: Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] Entity category support attribute for Data Protection CoCo?
  • Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:31:57 +0100
  • Authentication-results: prod-mail.geant.net (amavisd-new); dkim=pass header.i= AT univie.ac.at
  • List-archive: <https://mail.geant.net/mailman/private/edugain-discuss/>
  • List-id: eduGAIN discussion list <edugain-discuss.geant.net>
  • Organization: ACOnet

* Peter Schober <peter.schober AT univie.ac.at> [2014-11-04 17:43]:
> So an SP claiming GEANT CoCo /and/ REFEDS R&S must fulfill
> requirements from both ECs: It must be in the jurisdictions named by
> GEANT CoCo, it must request only attributes needed for operation of
> the service, etc. AND its purpose must match the REFEDS R&S defintion
> (by/for research/scholarship/collaboration/etc) and it MUST NOT
> request more attributes than REFEDS R&S allows (as an upper bound).
>
> The point being, unless incorrect things get recorded in SAML metadata
> during registration (or later), IDPs should be able to just release
> attributes according to each category definition, without interactions
> between those.
[...]
> I'd rather have that due dilligence done when assigning the category
> and checking any requested attributes.

Does that answer your question(s), Tom?

Any other opinions?

Do we need documentation on this case to make that more clear for all
federation operators expected to assign/check/register/publish entity
categories?
-peter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page