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

[Ian Young <ian AT iay.org.uk>]

> On 28 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Leif Johansson <leifj AT sunet.se> wrote:
> 
>> 28 nov 2014 kl. 17:44 skrev Ian Young <ian AT iay.org.uk>:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28 Nov 2014, at 16:10, Peter Schober <peter.schober AT univie.ac.at> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> *But* I think we have heard several reasons why (a) focussing on the
>>> SAML IDP (or even the institution) may not be useful, and (b) coming
>>> up with a shared/common understanding of the membership criteria for
>>> such a category is highly unlikely to happen.
>> 
>> I have to agree, although I'm open to be persuaded by an actual 
>> implementable definition that matches what people want to do.
>> 
>> An IdP entity category could obviously be part of that, but I believe that 
>> an "academic IdP" category is not going to be the answer (at least to the 
>> stated goal of "connecting
> 
> 
> agree - Doesn't mean it won't be useful...

Absolutely agree, an "academic IdP" entity category might well be useful for 
*something*.

For now, though, I'd prefer to concentrate on things that might address the 
OP's stated problem, and what I'm asserting is that an "academic IdP" entity 
category defined as you suggest isn't very useful for *that* unless you move 
the goalposts pretty dramatically.

>> To make progress, we'll probably find that we have to accept some shift in 
>> the boundaries of the use case.

... which is what I'm getting at here.

    -- Ian

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