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

[Peter Schober <peter.schober AT univie.ac.at>]

* Peter Schober <peter.schober AT univie.ac.at> [2015-04-16 15:59]:
> * Olivier Salaün <olivier.salaun AT renater.fr> [2015-04-16 13:59]:
> > I noticed that 108 SAML entities in eduGAIN MDS metadata have the
> > hide-from-discovery entity category set.
> > I checked what kind of IdPs have this attribute set and it turns out
> > that most of these IdPs have entityIDs looking like
> > https://idp-test.xx or https://idp-dev.xx. I therefore suppose they
> > are not production IdPs. I can also suppose that some of these IdPs
> > allow login with test accounts.
> 
> We discussed this at least two, if not three times before, IIRC.
> Unless anything drastic has changed from the last times we discussed
> this, why repeat the excerise?

No public archives available (as those were to two different lists)
but you should find this in your personal mail archive (otherwise as I
may be able to provide you with a copy of mine):

Feb 2013, <edugain AT geant.net>, started by Olivier
  Subject "Conditions for entities to be included in edugain test MD"
  Subject "Test entities in production federation"

Nov 2013, <edugain-tsg AT geant.net>, started by Lukas
  Subject "Test and Guest Identity Providers in eduGAIN"
  (I suggested moting this to edugain-discuss even in that thread.)

Also note that /one/ result from that last thread was that I wrote up
the hide-from-discovery entity category spec based on several people
expressing support for slightly generalizing the existing UKf metadata
extension of the same purpose.

The Nov 2013 thread has a very thorough discussion on this (including
an attempted summary of the Feb 2013 thread by Lukas), looking at this
problem from several angles. It would be pointless to try to repeat
this here again due to ignorance of what we discussed before?

It's obvious Olivier has not gotten closure over this issue since it
keeps popping up again. So how can we achieve it this time?
There were many arguments and there was at least partial agreement. I
cannot recall open dissent and cannot recall actual arguments in favor
of changing anything here to Olivier's satisfaction, let alone a
proposal for the eSG to decide on.

So, what will be different this time?
-peter