Versions Compared

Old Version 44

changes.mady.by.user Steven Carmody (brown.edu)

Saved on

compared with

New Version 45

changes.mady.by.user Steven Carmody (brown.edu)

Saved on

Key

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

...

  1. Update (i.e., make current) the set of use cases previously developed by the Social Identities Working Group. This should include use cases for the following situations:
    1. Social account linked to a campus-issued account
    2. Social identity used by a non-community member
  2. Develop a set of criteria for selecting external providers in a variety of usage scenarios. Ensure that both social providers (e.g., Google, Facebook, Twitter) and non-social providers (e.g., Microsoft, PayPal, VeriSign) are included.
  3. Identify and document properties of external accounts that would be of interest to web application owners and other relying parties. This should include both a) how the account is managed for authentication purposes, and b) attributes asserted by the account provider.
  4. Define and document how a gateway would represent the properties of an external account to an application.
  5. Contrast a central gateway with a local gateway. List the advantages and disadvantages of each deployment model.
  6. Provide application owners with recommendations regarding risk profiles when using external identities. (These profiles need not be based on the traditional 800-63 categories.) Describe various approaches to risk management.
  7. Document various approaches to account linking:
    1. Accounts can be linked either centrally (in a campus Person Registry, and visible via the campus IDP), or at a specific SP (application).
    2. Linking a campus account to a known external account, and linking an external account to an existing campus-issued account, where both accounts are used by the same person.
    3. Identify the properties that an external account must/should possess that would affect its use.
    4. Using an external authentication provider to authenticate to a campus-based service.
    5. Identify ways that campus-owned attributes could be asserted following authentication with an external account (e.g., group memberships)
  8. Produce a set of longer-lived recommendations for practitioners, roughly comparable to the NMI-DIR documents (e.g., papers, not just wiki pages).

...