Refeds


Subject RE: affiliate student?
From Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
Date Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:25:19 +0000

Sounds like there will be good sales for entitlement-management plugins for IdM systems, then :-(

Andrew (student@xxxxxxxxxx or 127.0.0.1 if coming via EZproxy)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicole HARRIS [mailto:n.harris@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 06 July 2010 12:33
> To: Andrew Cormack
> Cc: 'refeds@xxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [refeds] affiliate student?
> 
> I agree :) bizarrely it is the institutions pushing me for it.
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
> To: Nicole HARRIS
> Cc: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx <refeds@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Jul 06 08:58:10 2010
> Subject: RE: [refeds] affiliate student?
> 
> Just as a reality check - would these be the same publishers that have
> been happy using IP address "authorisation" for the past decade? I'd
> have a lot of sympathy for any IdPs reluctant to incur the cost of
> maintaining individual ePE values for every one of those :-(
> 
> Andrew
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David L. Wasley [mailto:dlwasley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 05 July 2010 17:15
> > To: Nicole Harris
> > Cc: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [refeds] affiliate student?
> >
> > I would suggest that your case is exactly what eduperson entitlement
> > was meant for.  It's similar to the "library walk-in" case in the US
> > - we don't even have them in our IdMS but they are "entitled to
> > access licensed content" merely because they are physically present
> > in the library (the computers in the library have personalities :-)).
> >
> > In other words, the campus is stuck with doing the (complex?)
> > attribute algebra and merely provides the result (Yes or DNC) to the
> > relying party.
> >
> > [The pushback from the RP might be "we don't trust you"; the response
> > might be "then why trust me to give you valid input?"  Etc. ]
> >
> > 	David
> > -----
> > At 10:41 AM +0100 on 7/5/10, Nicole Harris wrote:
> >
> > >In an ideal world ;-)  Unfortunately I'm dealing with publishers who
> > >put stupid clauses in their licenses and then refuse to accept
> > >anything but the most basic attributes to manage them.  Sigh.
> > >
> > >
> > >Scott Cantor wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Is it not possible for a RP to ignore qualifiers unless they know
> > >>>what they mean and actually care?  In other words (pardon my
> awkward
> > >>>syntax ;-))
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>The awkward syntax, which is really just pseudo-XML, is the
> problem.
> > People
> > >>seem to insist on using simple strings for everything, and that
> > doesn't
> > >>really allow for more than one "adjective" or qualifier. Scope is
> > really
> > >>just an example of one of those qualifiers, and we had to stop
> > insisting on
> > >>separating it from the value to get people to implement it
> properly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>SIA if this is a silly idea.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I think it's a fine idea, but I seem to be in a minority of
> > programmers.
> > >>
> > >>-- Scott
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> 
> 
> --
> 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