Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:29:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <758133100.2036.1711668547560@wiki-prod.refeds.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_2035_1127865943.1711668547559" ------=_Part_2035_1127865943.1711668547559 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
One of the reasons R&S supports ePPN and ePTID is that it was ta= rgeting applications that were broken because they only allow for a single = identifier to identify an individual (the =E2=80=9Cone field for everything= =E2=80=9D approach). That=E2=80=99s why ePPN was the chosen identifier, bec= ause it was traditionally a user-friendly identifier and so suitable for th= e one-size-fits-all use case, as long as you ignore reassignment. ePTID was= added to address reassignment. Those applications failed miserably if they= only had ePTID.
Is this still an issue? Do we still need to support = the one-size-fits-all approach? If we can chose a common, opaque identifier= , with an understanding that you want the additional personalization, we ca= n do that.
How to be clearer about =E2=80=9CWithout administrative involvement"=
How to be clearer that the campus does have control regarding what p= opulation they should release information about (e.g., whole campus? other?= )
One of the reasons R&S supports ePPN and ePTID is that it was ta= rgeting applications that were broken because they only allow for a single = identifier to identify an individual (the =E2=80=9Cone field for everything= =E2=80=9D approach). That=E2=80=99s why ePPN was the chosen identifier, bec= ause it was traditionally a user-friendly identifier and so suitable for th= e one-size-fits-all use case, as long as you ignore reassignment. ePTID was= added to address reassignment. Those applications failed miserably if they= only had ePTID.
Is this still an issue? Do we still need to support = the one-size-fits-all approach? If we can chose a common, opaque identifier= , with an understanding that you want the additional personalization, we ca= n do that.
How to be clearer about =E2=80=9CWithout administrative involvement"=
How to be clearer that the campus does have control regarding what p= opulation they should release information about (e.g., whole campus? other?= )