Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

edugain-discuss - Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] eduGAIN and non "academic" IdPs

edugain-discuss AT lists.geant.org

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

List archive

Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] eduGAIN and non "academic" IdPs


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Ian Young <ian AT iay.org.uk>
  • To: Niels van Dijk <niels.vandijk AT surfnet.nl>
  • Cc: edugain-discuss AT geant.net
  • Subject: Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] eduGAIN and non "academic" IdPs
  • Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:49:18 +0000
  • List-archive: <https://mail.geant.net/mailman/private/edugain-discuss/>
  • List-id: eduGAIN discussion list <edugain-discuss.geant.net>


> On 28 Nov 2014, at 12:04, Niels van Dijk <niels.vandijk AT surfnet.nl> wrote:
>
> I suspect(/hope) the UK federation that publishes protectnetwork has
> some reasoning for allowing them in (I must say I was surprised as
> well)

I'm not sure why it is so surprising, as I know that this IdP is also part of
some other federations (e.g., InCommon).

Although most UKf-registered IdPs are associated with academic institutions,
there are exceptions. The UKf has a mandate to support our schools sector as
well as higher and further education, for example, and I know some people
would exclude those IdPs from their definition of "academia".

Our federation operator also has discretion to allow other members as long as
they are judged to contribute value to our primary constituency.
ProtectNetwork fell into that category at a time when we didn't have the
broad support for SAML IdPs in the UK that we do now, for access to resources
like shared wikis.

> and this does make me wonder what policy the UK federation in
> general has in regard to validating that a person in an IdP is realy
> who he claims he is,

That's not something we have standards for at the federation level. We have a
notion of user accountability which is obviously somewhat related, and IdPs
can sign up to that, but we don't have a federation-wide assurance
requirement.

> but that is out of scope for why protectnetwork
> is in edugain at all..

Indeed; we export the ProtectNetwork entity because they are UK federation
members and haven't opted out, it's quite mechanical.

If that's a shocking and unacceptable consequence to some, we either need to
come up with precise rules we can all agree to apply[1], or participating
federations for which it's a problem will have to take local ownership of the
problem by filtering things they dislike.

-- Ian

[1] I am not going to hold my breath for this; it's a very hard problem.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page