...
| Line Number / Reference | Proposed Change or Query | Proposer / Affiliation | Action / Decision (please leave blank) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | general | As an editorial comment I'd suggest avoiding all the "For the purposes Supported in google doc comments | Peter Schober, ACOnet. Nicole Harris, GÉANT | |
| 02 | general | note that none of the 3 specs mentions NameIDs which are not attributes (and so do not fall under the local -- and somewhat circual -- definition of "user attributes": "a user attribute is *an* *attribute* that [...]"; my emphasis) but are personal data and suitable to identify the subject, in cooperation with the IDP, or even without, depending on the NameID format, nonetheless. So that seems like a significant omission | Peter Schober, ACOnet. | |
| 03 | lines 56, 57, general | As mentioned also with "Authentication Only" comment 04, I do not see the added value of bringing in bilateral agreements. It only weakens the spec, and there is no need because bilateral agreements can always be made. | Niels van Dijk, SURF | |
| 04 | line 85 - 87 | "Organisation", especially if provided in the form of eduPersonScopedAffiliation, is in many cases already a very usefull and likely enough to manage authorization. What if the service has no need for additional roles/groups being provided via the currently required entitlement(s)? I would suggest to state either Organizational or Entitlement MUST be provided, where both MAY be provided | Niels van Dijk, SURF | |
| 05 | line 98-99 | It is bad practice to send empty attribute statements, so how to combine the mandatory entitlement as per line 87 combined with the statement in these lines where it might be that no entitlement data is relevant to the SP? Also see above in (04) | Niels van Dijk, SURF | |
| 06 | line 96.3 | Which schema does the memberOf attribute come from? | Niels van Dijk, SURF | |
| 07 | line 116 | "when supported by their federation assert this in metadata" is that a MUST also? or perhaps a SHOULD? | Niels van Dijk, SURF | |
| 08 | line 155 | Using normative wording in implementation guide conflics with normative wording in core document. I would suggest to remove RFC2119 wording from the implementation guide so it is clear that is not normative, but informative. | Niels van Dijk, SURF |
...