This consultation opens on 4 October 2022 and closes on 8 November 2022 at 17:00 CET.
The REFEDS Entity Categories Development Working Group has developed a revision to the Pseudonymous Authorization Entity Category. This revision normalizes the language and requirements, as appropriate, across all three access-related entity categories (i.e., Anonymous, Pseudonymous, and Personalized Access Entity Categories) and changes the full name from Pseudonymous Authorization to Pseudonymous Access.
Included as supporting material for implementers are two documents:
While not officially part of the consultation, feedback on the informative text is welcome.
This consultation is open from: 4 October 2022 to 8 November 2022 17:00 CET.
Participants are invited:
- to consider the proposed revisions to this entity category
|comment #||Line/Reference #||Proposed Change or Query||Proposer / Affiliation||Action / Decision (please leave blank)|
|1||5.1 Required Attributes|
eduPersonEntitlement is no longer listed as required attribute, whereas seamlessaccess.org just published its "Contract Language Model License Agreement 1.0" that refers to the pseudonymous entity category and lists the entitlement attribute.
Rather confusing. Is the new consultation not aligned with seamlessaccess.org?
|Thomas Lenggenhager, SWITCH|
The SeamlessAccess material refers to the older entity categories. The discussion of entitlements was not complete in either document, the original entity categories or this contract language model.
We recommend that all parties refer to Federated Authorization Best Practices for the best ways to handle authorization, including the use of entitlement. There must be further discussion (possibly in FIM4L) regarding the use cases and appropriate principles for authorization.
No change necessary to the entity category.
|2||46-47||"Application" is an overloaded term. In this sentence it refers to the application for inclusion in the entity category. I misread it at first to mean service provider web application. Can you add a couple of words of clarification to the sentence?||Alex Stuart (Jisc)||The text has been modified to remove the word "application" in favor of "request".|
|3||55-57||Can you give an example of when a federation registrar would not remove the entity category when a Service Provider can no longer demonstrate compliance? I'd expect that the registrar MUST remove, not SHOULD.||Alex Stuart (Jisc)||We have modified the text to: "The federation registrar MUST remove the Entity Category if the Service Provider indicates a change in conformance. The federation registrar MUST have other remediation procedures to address a lack of compliance with these requirements."|