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

["Leif Johansson" <leifj AT sunet.se>]

> 28 nov 2014 kl. 18:22 skrev 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.
> 


Or we can slice the elephant and solve part of the problem first :-)

>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
>