Page History

Further Comments

Thanks, Steve.  This is, of course, a move toward more structured process, but I think the main issue here is potential standards' scope.  While T&I would not establish SAML standards, it very well could establish standards for R&S certifications within the scope of InCommon (as it did originally), or propose an R&S standard to REFEDS with an international scope (which it did later).  Either of the latter require knowing when something is officially Trust and Identity, as opposed to one or more people who have a relationship with Trust and Identity.  That's what the process is about.

Hi Steve,

As the author of those words -- my bad! You're right of course, that use of the term was loose. Internet2 would not be the last stop for some things becoming standards in the sense you mean, though it is sometimes the first stop, eg, the SAML Interoperability Profile. And other things become "community standards", having similar effect but in a more constrained scope. Eg, eduperson, Bronze, MFA Profile, and Baseline Expectations, to sample a range.

In any case, your question helps to underscore the value of having something like the Document Stewardship stuff in place. We want items like those above to have maximum impact, so we should make it easier to for them to have a more uniformly good quality and be referenceable in a "standard" and persistent way. If someone has an idea about those docs or the approach they embody might help us all produce a better outcome, now's the time to post it on the community review page!

Thanks,
TomB