Refeds


Subject Re: [eduGAIN-discuss] mari plan & next steps
From Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:27:14 +0100

* Jaime Pérez Crespo <jaime.perez@xxxxxxxxxx> [2014-10-29 19:07]:
> If I follow the example of R&S, then we have the following possibilities:
> 
> - We reject to provide some of the attributes required and therefore
> we are out of it. Our life is harder and miserable. Same for our
> institutions.

Why? You release any requested (via metadata) or mandatory (via
attribute bundle of an entity category) attributes the institution
provides.

I did fail to see the point where you only have one IDP that either
signals "R&S support" to the SP, or not (both choices failing for some
part of the community).

*But* that's only for the "support category" part of entity categories
(IMO, FEIDE would just have to list that, even though with some
institutions attributes would still be missing at the SP, to not
prevent access for all FEIDE members to that service.)

And while discovery filtering as "error prevention" is nice-to-have
actual error handling at the SP will take care of those cases (which
needs to be done anyway, also for IDPs that "usually" release
attributes).

So I think this is not actually a problem of attribute release, since
the one IDP would release any attribute the institutions make
available, right?
As such I don't see (yet) how this problem relates to attribute
meta-names, which is only about signalling from the SP to the IDP what
it needs, not about the IDP signalling that it will provide.
-peter