|e.g. line number||your comments here||your name here||please leave blank|
Include the following:
|Terms (Entity)||Replace exchanged by published in the following sentence:|
"In this document, an Entity refers to an entity’s metadata that a Participant Federation has exchanged through eduGAIN."
|Terms (Home Organisation)|
Replace: "The organisation with which the end users are affiliated."
|Terms (eduGAIN Policy Framework)|
Typo: SAML Profil -> SAML Profile
|Terms (SAML V2.0)||Replace: "Security Markup Language"|
with "Security Assertion Markup Language"
|Terms (SAML Metadata)||Sort this term before SAML Metadata Producer.||Thomas L|
|Terms (SAML Metadata)||This requirement should not be hidden in the Terms, but move to '3 Metadata Production":|
"Valid SAML Metadata MUST meet the requirements defined in the SAML Metadata Specification [SAMLMeta] including [SAMLMetaErrata]."
|Terms (Metadata Registration Practice Statement (MRPS))||Drop the second sentence "Every eduGAIN Member Federation must publish an MRPS.". This requirement is alreaedy included in 2 Metadata Registration on line 60.||Thomas L|
|line 65||The reference for [REFEDS-MDRPS] is missing.||Thomas L|
|line 84||The referene for [SAMLCore] is missing.||Thomas L|
|line 88||The reference for [MDRPI] is missing.||Thomas L|
|line 90||The reference for [MDUI] is missing.||Thomas L|
|line 103-104||Drop "other values in the service's native languages for the elements where appropriate." since it is already mentioned on lines 127-128.||Thomas L|
|A general remark||The current eduGAIN policy is supposed to be technology agnostic, from which it follows that the requirement for the presentation of the federation policy at the moment of joining may be fairly lax. At the moment of enabling a given profile, we should probably require additional documents like a profile-specific part of the federation policy, this should perhaps be mentioned as a required document in the SAML profile?||Tomasz W|
|Metadata registration||I find this somewhat misleading. Other sections of the document refer mostly to how the federation aggregate is produced, signed etc. This section mentions the internal document of a federation which describes how the entities make their way to the federation itself. While I fully support the need to have the registration statement requirement, I would see this particular as an element of something bigger. I would suggest that this section speaks about elements that need to be registered with the OT and which are now mentioned in several places, like the signing key, the registartionAuthority value, the metadata location. This section should state that this information needs to be passed to the OT in a trust preserving way, I would not however specify what this means, this might be specified in the Operations document.||Tomasz W|
1. The aim of this profile seems to be to improve interop among entities in different federations by means of definng common practices by fed ops and edugain ops. Interop issues can sometimes result from different filtering policies implemented by different federations when they consume edugain metadata. Examples include federation-specific standards for end point scheme (HTTP vs HTTPS) and minimum key length (1024 vs 2048+). Is this profile the right place at which to define eduGain-wide standards for such things? If so, is this the right time to consider doing so in these two instances?
2. Members of federations are advised by their federations' operators to check the signature of their federation metadata to verify its authenticity and integrity. Does eduGain do likewise in the process of aggregating member federations' metadata for redistribution? If not, should it, and if it does not but should, is this profile the right place in which to address that requirement?
line 111 change SHOULD to MUST
Chris/CAF: No additions specific to key rollover but a request for improved operational state information on the technical.edugain.org website
This will go a long way in managing expectations of when to expect data to circulate beyond '24-48hrs'. I suggest a simple table view of flag and age difference from MDS so we may know how far we all drift from each other republishing data from the eduGAIN MDS 'creation date'. While this could exist in the 'twisty list' for each federation, one visual dashboard page of observed latency would be more helpful in this regard.
regex scopes should be permitted and eduGAIN should ensure scopes do not collide when accepting aggregates from Members (see longer notes)
|ECP and logout|
They MAY exist and should be strongly encouraged with 'SHOULD'. 'MUST' would be very hard to do but having 'SHOULD' will keep parity to these features across multiple technologies like OIDC and moonshot. See below for more on this.
|BCP recommendations||Chris Phillips|
Remove requirement for the element
Remove requirement for MDUI description for IdPs - there is nothing useful to add here/recommendation (and the matching check in the eduGAIN validator) for the element
eduGAIN SAML Profile Review - the Long Read