Subject RE: publisher interface study
From "Andrew Cormack" <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
Date Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:19:52 +0100

It may be that the use of JRS for eduroam in the UK was partly a wish to
include the JANET brand.

But there was also an issue that 'edu' is perceived, at least by the UK
audience, as referring solely to *Higher* Education and excluding
others. For something that covers the whole JANET community, 'edu'
doesn't work as a primary name.

So if eduID is selected as a brand, I wouldn't be at all surprised to
see the same sort of hybrid being used for that as the current "JANET
Roaming <eduroam logo>" that you'll see at


Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser
JANET(UK), Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation
Campus, Didcot, OX11 0SG, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Fax: +44 (0) 1235 822399

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.Paschoud@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:J.Paschoud@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 21 September 2009 10:04
> To: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [refeds] publisher interface study
> I agree that a common name and branding would help.  This was a clear
> conclusion from the excellent Publisher Interface Study report by Rhys
> Smith.  Brand and infrastructure can be independent.  (I'm sure there
> must be some non-Internet-world examples out there but I can't think
> one now.)
> However, we need to appreciate that the actual providers of federation
> services in each country (usually the NREN such as JANET in the UK)
> will
> naturally have a desire to maintain their own branding.  This is
> evident
> in the UK by the fact that we still like to call eduroam "JANET
> Service" or JRS (reminiscent of "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off"  -
> please Google for this yourself if you're not old enough to know where
> it comes from ;->).
> Perhaps the key problem we need to solve is how a universal brand can
> be
> presented alongside information about the parties involved in a
> particular transaction (i.e. IdP, SP and WAYF).  "A resource protected
> by eduID, provided by Elsevier, Licensed by Bloghampton University,
> with
> discovery mediated by JANET(UK)" is *definitely too clunky!  - But
> something designed right to convey this information to an end-user
> could
> also help to identify who to call when something doesn't work.
> I raised (at a JISC meeting for potential project bidders last week)
> the
> issue that usability and UI design  - including of the 'discovery
> problem' and the more sophisticated bits of FAM with which users may
> interact in the future (devolved authority, etc) is significantly
> missing from the key themes that JISC is trying to address in its'
> round of IdAM development.  This needs to be more than assumed or
> implicit because it's crucial to the whole thing becoming a dominant
> standard.
> John
> --
> John Paschoud
> Projects Manager & InfoSystems Engineer
> LSE Library
> T: +44(0)20 7955 6129
> E: J.Paschoud@xxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
> 	From: Nicole Harris [mailto:n.harris@xxxxxxxxxx]
> 	Sent: 21 September 2009 09:27
> 	To: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx
> 	Cc: Josh Howlett
> 	Subject: Re: [refeds] publisher interface study
> 	Hi Josh
> 	Couldn't agree more - the 'name bit' is a small part of the
> battle.  This needs to be combined with a lot of other work that is
> going on - such as the work Rod is doing on the WAYF etc. etc. and
> detailed guidelines on how publishers should implement both the
> name to replace the plethora of 'institutional login', 'shibboleth',
> 'federation' that is out there at the moment, and to improve the
> general
> user flow.  We are hoping to appoint some professional UI people to
> look
> at these guidelines.
> 	I think the problem that any 'academic' login might work in some
> places and might not in others is always going to be a problem because
> at the end of the day it depends on whether your institution both has
> subscription to that service and uses federated access.  Again, this
> all going to be part of sensible fail messages etc. etc.
> 	I don't necessarily think that common brand, or at the very
> least 'recognisable name' as I'm not sure we are sophisticated enough
> to
> be a brand (!) without common infrastructure is a problem.  OpenID is
> in
> exactly the same position as a service with a common brand but
> distributed architecture.  I think we have one up on them in terms of
> scale of use by SPs at the moment though :-)
> 	Hope that helps
> 	Nicole
> 	Josh Howlett wrote:
> 		Hi Nicole,
> 			We are nearing the end the of the consultation
> period for the
> 			publisher interface study and as yet have had no
> dissenting
> 			voices.
> 		First I should say that this is, in principle, a fine
> idea.
> 		However - and perhaps I have misunderstood this proposal
> - I'm curious
> 		whether a common branding is a Good Idea in the absence
> of a common
> 		infrastructure.
> 		If it is not possible for a typical SP to obtain an
> assertion from a
> 		typical IdP (say, because they had no federation in
> common), then this
> 		might end up disappointing users. You can imagine a user
> getting
> 		confused when the 'eduID' button works for some SPs, but
> not others.
> 		I see that a smart embedded WAYF could help,
> particularly for those SPs
> 		that only care about certain IdPs.
> 		In summary, I certainly support the idea and think we
> should start
> 		working on the branding ASAP; I'm just saying that I
> don't think this is
> 		enough to solve the general case. Perhaps that's been
> implied, but I
> 		haven't seen it said explicitly.
> 		josh.
> 		JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a
> company limited
> 		by guarantee which is registered in England under No