Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Per-Entity Metadata Working Group - 2016-10-05
Agenda and Notes

[Etherpad used to create these notes: Agenda_and_Notes_-_2016-10-05.etherpad]

Dial in from a Phone:
 Dial one of the following numbers:
  +1.408.740.7256
  +1.888.240.2560
  +1.408.317.9253
 195646158 #
 Meeting URL (for VOIP and video):  https://bluejeans.com/195646158
 Wiki space:  https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/x/T4PmBQ

Attendees

  • David Walker, InCommon/Internet2
  • IJ, Internet2
  • Nick Roy, InCommon
  • Tom Scavo, Internet2/InCommon
  • Tommy Doan, Southern Methodist University
  • Ian Young
  • Tom Mitchell, GENI
  • Phil Pishioneri, Penn State
  • Scott Cantor, tOSU
  • Rhys Smith, Jisc


Agenda and Notes

  1. NOTE WELL: All Internet2 Activities are governed by the Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework. - http://www.internet2.edu/policies/intellectual-property-framework/
  2. NOTE WELL: The call is being recorded.
  3. Agenda bash
  4. Highlights of our TechEx session
    1. We'll recommend TLS, leaving final decision of how to manage keys based on some more research of CDNs.  (It won't be the same as the metadata signing cert.)
    2. For the validUntil setting, Tom Scavo suggested recommended as short a period as operationally feasible.
    3. A couple of people mentioned that they plan to implement their own MDQ service.
      1. This was either for increased availability and performance, or because they will be distributing a different set of entity metadata.
    4. From the Sharepoint session, MDQ helps with clients (like ADFS) that requires TLS.
      1. ADFS still has challenges with the volume of entities we have.
    5. Use of a non-commercial cert for this is a good idea, as suggested by ScottC
  5. Finalizing our report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MSRAO6FkEltsIM0E9X5y7dnfalephiaIvS1ZE2WTeFM/edit?usp=sharing
    1. Please add comments and suggested edits for discussion during the call.  Please use "suggesting" mode, unless you are correcting grammar, punctuation, etc.
    2. We'll add section numbers (or some other section identification that Google Docs supports)
    3. Somewhere, mention impacts on implementation and deployment profiles
    4. Most notes were made in the document itself.  Here are highlights.
      1. David will draft the executive summary for discussion next week.  Any calls to action by InCommon will need to be here, with details in the body of the report.
      2. Make sure discovery is appropriately highlighted as critical for a significant population of SPs.
      3. The issue of client bandwidth consumption will be rolled into other client issues.
      4. In the "Risks of Per-Entity Metadata Distribution" section, we'll note that the risks are not presented in any particular order.
      5. Regarding "bad" vs. "malicious" actors, we'll look for wording that also includes poor implementations that cause unintended "attacks" on the infrastructure.
      6. Need better language to describe IdP and SP transactions that require metadata.  "SSO web flows" is not right.



  • No labels