Subject Re: draft charge, refeds working group on attribute release
From Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:39:47 +0200

* Mikael Linden <Mikael.Linden@xxxxxx> [2011-07-01 14:13]:
> Peter> One the one hand we seem to have virtually no consent 
> Peter> functionality deployed (outside DK) 
> In Haka federation, consent module have been mandatory for IdPs
> since the very beginning. For Shib 1.3 we used proprietary, for
> Shib 2 we use uApprove. Haka (unlike is a 
> distributed Shib federation, not hub-and-spoke.

Sorry, I didn't want to step on anyone's toes or downplay other
federation's achievements. I should have worded that more carefully,
as I originally intended, before cutting down on the length of my

> Peter>and little hope of this fact changing fast.
> The eduGAIN Data protection good practice profile relies on IdPs
> having a consent module in place.

Now it only has to show that this will create the required traction
for IdPs to deploy consent. I'm all for it!

So, Mikael, are you in fact arguing that REFED[Ss] indeed needs to
tackle the problem of consent overuse now -- and I thought the problem
was that consent was not available widely enough even in those cases
where it would be desirable and justified (and legally required)?