...
Richard proposed to continue with Martin’s comments and to address SATO comments and said that everything in green is what has been already resolved.
...
Martin comments:
- Comment on Row 74 - agreed.
Martin comments:
- Row 91 extend it. Add
- Comment on Row 91 - agreed to add to criteria 0460 "limit or extend" a subject session duration at the RP.
- Comment on Rows 94-98 about implementation on HOK , - Richard W. asked if it they should be ignored or reviewed? Richard W. said it . He added that is the only reference to FAL3. In absence of comments they are going to remain and will be reviewed later.
...
- We must be aware of who will be certified (or assessed) by using 63C SAC. Unlike 63A or 63B, an IdP need cooperation with (or enforcement by) its participating federation. Therefore, a pair (IdP, federation) would be a target for assessment, considering the current operations of federations mentioned below.
Richard
said it is a good idea, but not feasible. Richard added that the Service Provider would need to be individually assessed. He also pointed out that there are no means to assess -?-
-Richard W. also sees a problem because a meaningful federation will
have multiple CSPs (IdPs), so assessing the Federation Authority with only (either) a
single CSP or (alternatively) ALL CSPs seems either pointless or
alternatively very burdensome.
-Richard W. remarked “We desire to have an RP assessed” as KI is not in a position to mandate that unless we own a federation. Richard W. said that the criteria say: “Each participant”.
-Ken stressed that Federation Authority is responsible for the federation and its operation, and it is also the one that will respond if something goes wrong.
- SATO: “Today, it is common that an IdP belongs to multiple federations.
For example, a research IdP belongs to both InCommon and eduGain, which are operated under different policies and contracts”. - It was Agreed with the statement.
- Ken also commented that Federation Authority must ensure that the assessment was done, but there is no need to perform the assessment.
“Furthermore, in commercial IdP (OP), it is very common that a single IdP collects multiple RPs, and build a federation. Here, the bunch of individual contracts between the IdP and RP would be the "policy" of this implicit federation”.
- It was commented that if a CSP plays in multiple Federation, do they have to get an assessment for each Federation? How common are the requirements and do we give folks approval when they have met 80% of the requirements? Ken responded that again it comes down to how common are the requirements, and if they got 80% of the requirements, you only need to be assessed for the 20%.
- Richard W. clarified that CSPs are individually assessed and each of them have to show how they meet it. In fact, the criteria say “each participant”.
- Remaining for next week: finish question 2. of SATO
- Richard W. concluded that so far, it has gone through what a Federation might look like and how it must function/operate. It is an immature area
pointed that that in a Fed, someone will be setting the rules, and there might at least 3 or more participants, otherwise it will be bilateral relationship. Therefore, it's unlikely to manage the assessments of the all the participants together. Service Provider would need to be individually assessed. He also pointed out that there are no means to assess exclusively at the moment, a similar process could be created.