This consultation opens on Thursday 23rd June 2022 at 18:00 CEST and closes on Thursday 21st July at 18:00 CEST
Background
The eduGAIN Futures Group was established with the following goals:
- To review the REFEDS Baseline Expectations document and make proposals for changes to eduGAIN to support the baseline.
- To identify key issues with current eduGAIN service provision and make recommendations for improvements (e.g. support mechanisms for CoCo and R&S, lack of service offer to Service Providers, technology support for OIDC etc).
- To review the governance model for eduGAIN and make recommendations for improvements.
- To cross-reference proposals with other working groups and the eduGAIN service teams.
Out of scope:
- Direct policy revision - this work will be carried out based on the recommendations of this group.
Full information about the group can be found at: eduGAIN Futures Working Group Charter.
Overview
The eduGAIN Futures Working Group met on a two-weekly cycle since its inception to produce a set of recommendations for the eduGAIN Steering Group and the eduGAIN Service Team. A draft white paper has been produced and is now shared with the wider FIM community for consultation and comment.
The document for the consultation is available as a pdf attachment. All comments should be added to the changelog below or sent directly to: edugain-discuss@lists.geant.org. Comments posted to other lists will not be included in the consultation review.
Change Log
| comment # | Line/Reference # | Proposed Change or Query | Proposer / Affiliation | Action / Decision (please leave blank) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NA | Include names and organizations of contributing authors and editor(s) | Nicole Roy | |
| 2 | 144 | Does this mean that all participatings federations would have to switch to an opt-out policy? Our (DFN-AAI) constituency wouldn't accept that, I'm afraid... (currently, 314 out of 374 IdPs are exposed to eduGAIN - after all). | Wolfgang Pempe | |
| 3 | 144 | I see here a possible conflict with Baseline Expectations FO1 and FO3, especially in terms of filtering out untrustworthy entities from the eduGAIN downstream metadata. Currently, this only applies to SAML1-only-entities, but the next step will be to remove SPs without a Privacy Statement URL. If the Steering Group were to ban such a thing, we'd have a problem... | Wolfgang Pempe | |
| 4 | 131 (rec 1.2) | We support adding ther ability to filter individual entities. We believe eduGAIN should implement more basic checks at this level, because now entities are dropped downstream (e.g. the UKAF filtering), while the checks are reasonable, doing it decentrally makes the system unpredictable (works in some federations, dropped from others). We should take this kind of actions at the source. Even mandate that downstream federations stop this kind of filtering altogether - either do it centrally or not at all. | SURFconext | |
| 5 | 141 (rec 2.1) | What is required here of IdPs exactly? Supporting 'personalized' as an IdP means that you must release that bundle to all SP's that request it. Does this mandate that all IdPs will be doing that? And what happens if they don't? | SURFconext | |
| 6 | 143 (rec 2.3) | A clear mission and strategy for eduGAIN are in our opinion required to know what actions you need to take to get there. Some of the proposed recommendations depend on what the mission/vision of eduGAIN actually is. However, we accept that this does not exist yet and we believe that e.g. establishing a better governance model will help if this new governance will prioritze defining a mission and vision for eduGAIN. | SURFconext | |
| 7 | 153 (rec 3.1) | We wholeheartedly support a balanced steering group with a real mandate to decide the direction and operation of eduGAIN and think it's instrumental in bringing about the other changes proposed in the document within a reasonable timeframe or at all. | SURFconext | |