...
- 10 comments received: https://wiki.refeds.org/x/qwHoAQ
- comments added to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15v65wJvRwTSQKViep_gGuEvxLl3UJbaOX5o9eLtsyBI/edit
- 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
- #4: clarify “pairwise IDs recommended by REFEDS”
- 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
- #10: the commentator appears to have misunderstood the ePA-1m and ePA-1d concepts.
...