...
- Recap of consensus so far - note that all changes will need to be validated via the consultation process
- The FAQ will be revised to offer clarity on the term "affiliation" (see Research and Scholarship FAQ) and editorial changes made to the spec to make it more clear (see new draft spec for updated structure)
- eduPersonScopedAffiliation will become a required value
- R&S will require privacy statements
- subject-id should be listed as the new identifier
- R&S 1.3 and R&S 2.0 can co-exist; no migration detail will be included in the spec itself.
- ePPN and targeted ID to both be removed from R&S 2.0
- Information on OIDC requirements will be moved to R&S 2.1 (after the OIDF OIDCre working group has formal documentation in this space)
- eduPersonAssurance will be required, RAF recommended
- We'll resolve the need for information on the origin organization by adding guidance for the use for eduPersonScopedAffiliation
- DisplayName and Given/SN are required
- Definition Statement for R&S.
Review of final changes to the draft spec
Definition Statement for R&S
Problem statement: the current definition of who can be tagged with R&S ("Candidates for the Research and Scholarship (R&S) Category are Service Providers that are operated for the purpose of supporting research and scholarship interaction, collaboration or management, at least in part.") is being interpreted differently by different groups. Requirements that are not specifically in the specification are being applied by federations, creating an uneven use of the specification.
| Areas questioned | Potential issues |
|---|---|
| Is R&S focused on the requirements of the service or the organisational type | Issues with not having a definition of an R&S / R&E organisation and the fact that most organisations have business arms to R&E structure |
| Should "commercial" services be allowed | No way to distinguish the nuance in commercial vs paid for |
| Should services that are contracted be allowed | Contracts are paid for things like collaborative wikis, having a contract does nothing to help the |
| Should "management" be dropped from the definition statement | |
| Is this about translation of real world trust (need to collaborate with other humans) into the spec | |
| Should services that are "operated for" IdPs be allowed (e.g. cloud infrastructure - geant.altassian.com vs wiki.geant.org) | Who is registering the entity, which challenges are there with registering cloud entities, how do you determine the difference between a private / community based approach vs just having an account in a commercial environment |