Page History

Catching up after the long weekend...

1. Tom, do you mind if I add this thread to the wiki page that was set up for community review?
2. Regarding software support for MDQ, the group did have a little discussion of software that might be closer to supporting MDQ than the aggregates (ADFS?), but in general, the software that isn't expected to support MDQ doesn't support any kind of federation-distributed metadata, anyway.  MDQ as a new option for retrieving metadata doesn't change that.

David

On 11/23/2016 10:11 AM, Scott Koranda wrote:

Hi Tom (and all),

I wondered what should be our message to sites
relying on anything but shib or ssp. 

Are you suggesting that we include in the report a paragraph
(or so) that specifically gives some guidance to those sites?

I think that would be fine.

Change your software? Change your software
and TIER will have made that a much easier task than previously? Leave the
federation? 

I think any text we add can detail that the working group
reached out specifically to Ping Identity and Microsoft and
that representatives from both projects are aware of the
working group's and InCommon's efforts and plans around MDQ.

Neither reported that at this time their organizations have
specific plans to support MDQ.

I think the text should then go on to specifically recommend
that sites get in touch with their vendors and direct them to
the working group report and ask their vendors for guidance.

I could imagine a last sentence in that paragraph that says something like

"We remind sites that operate SAML software stacks other than Shibboleth
or SimpleSAMLphp that only those projects have historically
and consistently supported in a timely way functionality
highly desired for the best interoperability in the higher
education and research federations."

Hire yourself a consultant like Scott to build a work-around for
your site? 

To be clear, my participation in the working group has been
directly sponsored by and funded by LIGO. I prefer to keep my
participation in that context. Thanks.

Don't worry, this time the vendors will all listen to us and do
exactly what we say? :-)

I don't think the working group report is the right place to
rehash the history or vendor support (or lack thereof).

That could be, however, an interesting output for another
working group devoted to that singular issue--provide clear
and detailed documentation of what products supported what
functionality at what time.

I expect campuses might find that a useful tool.
 

We should probably have thought this through a bit before
releasing the report or risk some substantial stakeholders
believing that we will leave them out of our future.

The report calls out in the executive summary that community
pressure will be necessary to cause Ping and others to support
MDQ.

Later in the roadmap, specifically in the "Longer Term"
section the report suggests InCommon develop a plan to retire
aggregate distribution "in the 36-48 month time frame,
depending on how vast that majority is". Here the "majority"
are those IdPs and SPs that have migrated already to MDQ.

Taken together I think that signals clearly to sites operating
other stacks that there will not be any immediate or even
short term risk that they will be "left out". 

I would be surprised if you receive any feedback from
substantial stakeholders that they feel they are at risk due
to the timeline in the report.

If you agree, my question is whether the WG should think about this or some
other group should focus on it.

I agree that we could add a paragraph specifically addressing
sites that run other stacks, as I indicated above.

Other then that, I would like to see this working group
complete its task, deliver the report to TAC, and then end.

If the TAC (or some other group) wants a more detailed roadmap
developed for such sites I suggest it be done by another
working group. 

Thanks much for your feedback. 

Cheers,

Scott K for LIGO