Refeds


Subject Re: entity categories
From Tom Scavo <trscavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:45:58 -0400

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Benn Oshrin <benno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/25/13 10:22 AM, Peter Schober wrote:
>>
>> If you're specifically suggesting to change the above to
>>
>>    displayName AND givenName AND sn
>>
>> that's something else and about the only thing I can image we could to
>> "short" term.
>
> Something like that would, I think, be helpful... ie: An attribute
> bundle is less useful to me if I don't know which attributes I'll be
> reliably getting.

I would be open to that.

Here are some statistics that might help. As of today, 55 InCommon
IdPs support R&S. All of those assert ePPN (because it's required) but
only 43 of those ePPNs are not reassigned. A total of 30 IdPs assert
ePTID, some because they have to, others because they want to.
Finally, 50 IdPs assert displayName, 52 assert givenName, and 51
assert sn (surName).

Since the various person name attributes are almost always asserted by
InCommon IdPs, I would be in favor of Peter's amendment. I'm not so
sure about ePTID, however. Requiring ePTID may rule out some IdPs (or
at least force them into an uncomfortable position). I won't dismiss
this idea out of hand, however.

If necessary, I could contact our R&S IdPs and ask them if they are
willing and/or able to assert ePTID and all of the person name
attributes.

Tom