Refeds


Subject RE: VO challenges - article
From "Jones, Mark B" <Mark.B.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:44:36 +0000

> > [Mark] I don't think 'perceived risk' is the issue here.  There are no
> > users here asking for this and so it is not on anyone's to-do list.  I
> > think it would be an easy sell if it were a priority for someone not in
IT.
> 
> In my experience, most researchers in research VOs don't know what
federated
> identity is or what it would buy them, so it's not surprising that they're
not
> asking. If the VO has a computing person (or, fates forbid, a computing
group),
> someone in the VO might know about identity federation and  want to enable
it
> for their collaboration. Would having someone from NIH contact you and say
> "can you support R&S entity category for us so we can enable research for
> people on your campus" be enough to get it done? Because, if so, I might
be
> able to arrange that.
> 
[Mark] I believe that having the right researcher ask would get the job done
here.


> In any case, I can assure you from personal experience that it is not the
case
> that all IdP operators simply need to be asked and will then start
supporting
> research VOs, even with R&S attributes. There are some large research
> campuses that we (LIGO) have been asking on many levels, including having
on-
> campus researchers ask on our behalf, and still have not gotten R&S
support.
> The reasoning we're given supports Nick's assertions - there is a
perceived risk
> that someone somewhere on campus can't sign off on. Whether that is the
only
> or most pressing reason it is not done I can't know.
> 
> Warren
> 
[Mark] I think Nick's FERPA argument is persuasive.  Maybe a combination of
asking and arming the researchers with a prepared white paper that addresses
commonly perceived risks?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature