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

[Miroslav Milinovic <miro AT srce.hr>]

Miro is reading this thread and traveling this and next week :-)

BTW the error is registered, e.g. for this SP visit

https://monitor.edugain.org/coco/?show=list_sp_tests

and set the filters CoCo found and IsChanged  to "All"

You'll see "Error fetching PrivacyStatementURL" on September 2.

As I wrote earlier we are working on improvements and any (concrete)
suggestion from users/interested parties would be much appreciated.

Miro

On 19-Sep-17 14:11, Ioannis Kakavas wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 19/09/2017 02:51 μμ, Peter Schober wrote:
>> * Lukas Hämmerle <lukas.haemmerle AT switch.ch> [2017-09-19 13:26]:
>>> The CoCo monitor has sent out quite a few of those false positive check
>>> mails in the past weeks. Some of them then ended also up in the eduGAIN
>>> e-Science Support ticket queue because SP admins were asking us what was
>>> wrong with their SP.
>>
>> Then why not tell them that this was a mistake and that there is
>> nothing wrong with their entity? (If that's in fact the case.)
>> If you can send out emails claiming someone else did something wrong
>> you can always send apologies, too, no?
> 
> I would argue this is not necessary.
> 
>> (I don't insist on any apologies, though, what I want is clear
>> answers, and ones that don't take 2 weeks for already sent error
>> reports.)
>>
>>> My guess is that the CoCo check failed to download the privacy
>>> statement due to some temporary connectivity issues.
>>
>> From the URL I previously sent this can be ruled out for the entity in
>> question: In all paged results available here there's not a single
>> error of any kind, AFAICT:
>>
>> https://monitor.edugain.org/coco/?f_id_sp=1447&f_entityID=vetuc&f_coc_found=1&f_last_seen=1&page=1&f_order=ts+desc&show=list_sp_tests&f_is_changed=1
>>
>>> However, only the admins of the CoCo monitor might know more for
>>> sure.
>>
>> The SP said asking at <monitor AT edugain.org> "didn't work" (I have not
>> checked back with them what they meant with that, specifically) and
>> that asking at <edugain AT geant.org> next they got Ioannis telling that
>> their entity is "probably" fine (I'm retranslating from German into
> 
> My reply was :
> 
>  "Thank you for the notification. As you also concluded we cannot see
> any issue with your SP being compliant to the Code of Conduct. We have
> forwarded this to the responsible team for the monitoring infrastructure
> and we will let you know if we get any additional feedback. "
> 
> 
> To which the entity administrator replied something along the lines of
> "thanks for the feedback we won't change anything. If you hear some
> additional feedback, let us know" . You can ask them for the verbatim
> answer.
> 
> Miro didn't have any additional feedback, other than that they are
> working on enhancements and they will get back to us if/when they have
> news.
> 
> 
> Given the above and the communication we had with the administrator, I
> don't see why we left them hanging or why they should be still waiting
> for something. We closed the ticket, but I would have nothing against
> sending them an email to let them know that we didn't get any additional
> feedback and we still think this was a false positive ( even apologize
> on behalf of the monitoring service for it ).
> 
>> English here, I don't have the reply at hand verbatim) and that this
>> will be looked into.
>> Hence me asking two weeks after the notification what the verdict is.
>>
>>> Miro and team (who are operating the CoCo monitor) are informed
>>> already about this issues. Also about the suggestion to improve the
>>> emails to include the cause of why the check supposedly failed.
>>
>> Yes, adding the error itself to the message is certainly necessary.
>> And avoiding sending false positives to entity owners in the first
>> place, but we all make mistakes and that's an issue *if* someone told
>> them that this indeed was a mistake on behalf of the eduGAIN monitor
>> and not their own fault. (I can live with the fault being mine, too.)
> 
> I agree it would be great to get rid of all those pesky false positives
> but we should make do with what we have. As Lukas said, we have
> forwarded the feedback to the service owner.
> 
>>
>> Finally, I wasn't aware the eduGAIN monitor contacted entity owners
>> directly at all (but I may have missed that since I wasn't able to
>> attend recent eduGAIN SG meetings) and did not involve the federation
>> operator in any of this. When the answer to questions about the error
>> report is "ask your federation operator" anyway (i.e., the stagtegy is
>> to play this via the hierarchy when it's convenient) why not always
>> communicate through the federation operator, or at least let the fedop
>> know there /are/ issues with some of its entities, e.g. in Cc: ?
> 
> +1 , I guess Miro is reading this.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ioannis
> 
>>
>> Maybe that's not an option for federations with dozens or even
>> hundreds of SPs in eduGAIN. OTOH as a fedop I take it upon me to
>> curate and produce proper, error-free, rich federation metadata, so I
>> certainly want to know if any of my entities fail to conform to
>> published specs!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> -peter
>>
>