REFEDS Assurance WG call to check the consultation comments
Monday 25th June at 15:30 CEST/8:30 CDT
CERN’s Vidyo:



1. REFEDS Assurance Framework

  • 10 comments received:
  • comments added to the Google doc:
  • major comments
    • #4: clarify “pairwise IDs recommended by REFEDS”
      • decided to be forwards-leaning and adopt ePUID, subject-ID and pairwise ID for SAML and public/pairwise for OIDC
    • #1: clarify “ePPN reassign” w.r.t. other properties of ID/unique
      • to speed up adoption, keep the door open for eppn being the (only) unique id an IdP can provide
      • Tom to suggest a logic table that clarifies the CSP behaviour
    • #2, #8, #9: protests on references to external closed specs (like Kantara SAC)
      • let’s find out if we can cite the relevant specs in the RAF appendix.
      • Tom to check if Kantara allows us to cite SAC directly
      • Kantara SAC now known as Kantara Classic
  • minor comments
    • #10: the commentator appears to have misunderstood the ePA-1m and ePA-1d concepts.
      • Mikael to find out a wording that would be more clear on the difference on the business and IT decision
    • #10: should we replace 30 days by 31 days so “one month” will qualify also for months with 31 days?
      • Adopted
    • #3: Sirtfi proposed for conformance criteria (in the 2017 consultation  the WG already rejected this)
      • Stick to the previous decision. Respect the orthogonality of RAF and Sirtfi
    • #5: espresso missing from the example in Appendix B
      • Adopted proposal
    • #6: Appendix C has become irrelevant after dropping authN from RAF
      • Adopted proposal
  • thanks to Ian Young for style/grammar corrections

 2. SFA profile


Next steps: Monday 2 July at 15:30 CEST/8:30 CDT

  • No labels