Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Some of us did mini attribute release trial. We agree that walking registrars through what release looks like, how it works, they get the value.
  • One of the components could be enabling the CIOs to make the case to registrars.
  • Other blocker is that IT teams on campus don’t check logs, aren’t aware of lack of access to resources that some users deal with.

Summary of F2F Meeting Key Points (by Mark Scheible)

  • Working Group Deliverables

    • Not trying to single-handedly solve, but understand what the impediments are for IdPs (campuses) to release R&S

      • Some schools do not do “research” and don’t feel the need to adopt R&S

      • Releasing email address might be an issue for some campuses

        • Can that requirement be removed?

        • Email address is a required attribute for some R&S SPs

      • The R&S attributes are not being released to every SP a user goes to, just those that are approved as R&S SPs and identify as such

      • Opinion: Vast majority of IdP operators only want to work with a small number of SPs they have contracts with - that’s a major obstacle

      • Many organizations point the finger at Registrars, but when they’re walked through the process, they have no problem with it (recent meeting with registrars at AACRAO conference)

        • Possibly just needs to be communicated more clearly than “attribute release”

      • (Chris) Currently just R&S or nothing, maybe having more granularity would be better received?

      • Focus on institutions that aren’t currently releasing R&S

        • R1s? Or all participants?

...