Refeds


Subject RE: Fwd: Consultation: Metadata Registration Practice Statement
From Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:43:29 +0000

Even before we get to any normative aspect, just having federation practice statements described under a common set of headings would make it much easier to compare and work out which are "like us". I've several times cursed the fact that we didn't think of developing a standard template for federation policies sooner :(

So even if you're not interested in a possible eduGAIN normative function, it's well worth considering (and commenting on) whether the common structure would make your own life easier.

Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicole Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 January 2015 15:36
> To: Ann Harding; Peter Schober
> Cc: refeds
> Subject: Re: [refeds] Fwd: Consultation: Metadata Registration Practice
> Statement
> 
> +1 on that.  It could be that the lack of deployment context that makes this
> difficult to comment on just at REFEDS level so we may end up taking this as
> far as we can reasonably but passing off to edugain / GN4 identity and
> harmonisation for more work. It's a useful contrast to bear in mind.
> 
> On 12/01/2015 15:07, Ann Harding wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 	On 12.01.2015, at 16:00, Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 		* Tom Scavo <trscavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:trscavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [2015-01-12 15:54]:
> 
> 
> 			I was expecting to see a baseline MRPS with
> normative requirements
> 			(exactly the type of thing you've said this document
> is NOT). Was this
> 			discussed as a possible formulation of this
> document?
> 
> 
> 
> 		Who would be in a position to prescribe anything normative
> to anyone
> 		here?
> 		"You can't call yourself 'Federation' unless you adopt this
> practice
> 		and agree to be bound by that document"?
> 		"You can't be on the REDEDS mailing list unless you."
> 
> 
> 	To paraphrase, something normative needs a deployment context in
> which to be normative:)
> 
> 
> 		Of course eduGAIN could create such requirements but (a)
> this is
> 		REFEDS, not eduGAIN, and (b) the federations in eduGAIN
> would have to
> 		vote to get those rules in place first (rules that would
> potentially
> 		kill off their eduGAIN participation are unlikely to being voted
> for).
> 
> 
> 
> 	This *is* the kind of thing we want to tackle with the GN4
> harmonisation pilots in eduGAIN. Testing out what are useful requirements
> beyond the current baseline and what is needed for them to be
> implemented in a way that eduGAIN SG would vote to endorse them.
> 
> 
> 
> 		Feel free to bring this up as a new requirement for eduGAIN
> 		participation on one of the eduGAIN mailing lists.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Please do! In full or focussing on particular aspects if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 		But for REFEDS I
> 		don't see how anyone could make anyone else do anything
> specific.
> 		-peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Ann Harding
> 	GÉANT Trust & Identity Service Development
> 
> 
> 	--
> 	SWITCH
> 	Serving Swiss Universities
> 	--------------------------
> 	Ann Harding, SWITCH
> 	Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
> 	phone +41 44 253 98 14, skype annhardingswitch
> 	ann.harding@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ann.harding@xxxxxxxxx> ,
> http://www.switch.ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Nicole Harris
> Project Development Officer
> GÉANT Association Amsterdam Office (formerly TERENA)
> Singel 468 D, 1017 AW Amsterdam
> The Netherlands
> Skype: harrisnv
> M:+31 64 610 53 95