spaces.at.internet2.edu has been upgraded to Confluence 6.12.2. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please contact us at collaboration-support@internet2.edu
Child pages
  • Group Members' Thoughts about the Evaluation Criteria
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This page captures relevant criteria upon which External ID providers might be assessed, along with group members' comments. Its purpose was only to structure discussion of the criteria and should not be considered a final product of the work group.

Should Required vs. Desired vs. Optional answers be identified separate from assertions? Note that if so, which answers are Required, etc. will vary based on which solution approach is taken.

Desired Reponses from...

Reassign

Pwd Policies

MFA

ID Proof

Attributes

Attr Stability

Release

Consent

Consent Expr

MFA Expr

Directed vs. Static

Mission

Stability

EULA/ Terms

Cost

Audits

Eric Goodman

No reuse/
reassignment ever

Ideally Silver compatible

Ideally

Varies by use case

Required: UserID;
Desired: User knowable UserID; confirmed contact address

Indefinite

Ideally granular

Ideally

SAML Attribute

SAML AuthnContext (and/or attribute?)

Static preferred. In some use cases static is required.

Non-user tracking/privacy preserving is ideal

Always good

???

$0 or low

NIST LoA 1

David Walker

Non-reassigned identifier available

Silver / LoA-2, but depends on use case.

Yes, but depends on use case

Depends on use case

Non-reassigned identifier, email

Documented

Documented

Yes

Documented

SAML AuthnContext (and/or attribute?)

Documented

Non-user tracking/privacy preserving is ideal

Always good

Documented

$0 or low

NIST LoA 1 (LoA 2 desired)

Mary Dunker

never reassign unique identifier

Comparable to Bronze or Silver - depending on use case

a desirable option

Varies by use case.   Important to publish ID Proofing, if any is done

R&S attributes

Document

Document

yes - required

SAML Attribute

SAML AuthnContext (and/or attribute?)

Document

Non-user tracking/privacy preserving is ideal

Good - Document

Document

$0

NIST LoA 1 

John Breen

No reuse 

Depends on use case.
Silver compatible but not necessary if use case does not require.

Support Required

By use case

non-reassigned id
e-mail
Optional: address, first, last.

Documented

Documented

Case by case. Some attr. no consent (unique id). 

SAML attribute

SAML AuthnContext (and/or attribute?)

Documented

Non-user tracking/privacy preserving is ideal

Good - provable via documentatioin/metrics

Documented
Can this conflict with campus privacy policy?

$0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend

  • Service: Name of External ID service provider
  • Account Management Policies
    • Reassign: Policies around reassignment of accounts. Specifically, whether the "key identifier") reassigned to different users.
    • Pwd policies: Overview of password requirements (related to complexity, guessing resistance, etc.)
    • MFA: Does the vendor offer Multi-Factor support.
  • Account Identity Vetting
    • ID Proof: Is there any identity proofing done by the External provider that would allow a campus to trust attributes other than Ext ID-sourced IDs (like "Account Name" and "email")
    • Attributes: Related to ID Proofing, what attributes are collected and how are they proofed.
    • Attr Stability: Stability of the External ID and attributes over time
  • AuthN Policies
    • Release: Attribute release practices, including
      • What attributes are released?
      • What is the granularity of data release? (Attributes vs. bundles)
    • Consent: Is there a user consent process before data is released to SPs.
    • Consent Expr: How does the provider express that user consent was provided for release
    • MFA Expr: How do they express whether Multifactor has been used?
    • Directed vs. Static: Does the External ID provider release a directed (per SP) or static (correlatable across SPs) identifier?
  • Company Details
    • Mission: Mission of the company, including:
      • Private vs. public
      • Privacy focus
    • Stability: Stability of the vendor and the service that the vendor offers
      • Likely this is not directly measurable, and would be more along the lines of
      • "how long in business"
      • "how long service has been operational"
      • "how many users using their IDs"
      • etc.
  • Other Concerns
    • EULA: Are there terms the External provider applies that are potentially in conflict with general campus policies?
    • Cost: Is there a cost to the user or the organization to leverage the IDs?
    • Audits: What 3rd party certifications or audits are available to confirm function of service?
  • No labels