Refeds


Subject Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] mari plan & next steps
From Nicole Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:11:05 -0400

Just a reminder that there is a separate mailing list for this group if
you want to use it :-)

On 29/10/2014 12:52, Peter Schober wrote:
> * Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@xxxxxxx> [2014-10-29 17:42]:
>> One reason RequestedAttribute still matters is that without a way to use
>> that approach, you can't signal required vs. optional, and there are
>> federations increasingly looking at per-attribute consent, rightly or
>> wrongly.
> Interesting. So meta-attribute names are really about reviving the
> isRequired="true|false" flag (and thereby reviving RequestedAttributes
> itself), which we've given up on -- mostly because of the inability to
> express multiple acceptable alternatives?
>
> I.e. the meta-names would need accompanying specification that would
> always say "At least one of the following attributes[1] needs to be
> released, if this meta-name is being requested"?
>
> How about "ePPN only if it's not re-assigned, otherwise ePPN+ePTId"?
>
> But then no, seems we cannot request ePPN ever, because the Danish
> don't have it? So we'd have to define meta-variants of individual
> attributes (fooEduUniqueID eq ePPN eq ...) and then yet
> metameta-variants of permutations of those?
> That would leave us with *many* such attribute names, though, all of
> which would need to be implemented widely at IDPs in order for any of
> that to make sense?
> -peter
>
> [1] givenName+sn counting as one in this example
>


-- 
----------------
Project Development Officer
TERENA
Singel 468 D
Amsterdam, 1017 AW
The Netherlands

T: +31(0)20 5304488
F: +31(0)20 5304499 

mob: +31(0)646 105395
skype: harrisnv