You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

V/C info

Topic: R&S 2.0 WG call
Time: Mar 16, 2021 08:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada), 15:00 UTC

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89500084874?pwd=SnFqS0hRam1OYlExdGtlaWxsdUFPQT09

Meeting ID: 895 0008 4874
Passcode: 065112
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,89500084874#,,,,*065112# US (Tacoma)
+13462487799,,89500084874#,,,,*065112# US (Houston)

Dial by your location
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
Meeting ID: 895 0008 4874
Passcode: 065112
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdKIetru1

Join by Skype for Business
https://us02web.zoom.us/skype/89500084874

Calendar invitation HERE

Working Draft

Agenda

  1. Recap of consensus so far
    1. 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)
    2. eduPersonScopedAffiliation will become a required value
    3. R&S will require privacy statements
    4. Encouraging the use of eduPersonAssurance requires further discussion with the Assurance Working group
    5. subject-id should be listed as the new identifier
    6. R&S 1.3 and R&S 2.0 can co-exist; no migration detail will be included in the spec itself.
    7. ePPN and targeted ID to both be removed from R&S 2.0
    8. Information on OIDC requirements will be moved to R&S 2.1 (after the OIDF OIDCre working group has formal documentation in this space)

  2. eduPersonAssurance and RAF (Jule Ziegler)

    1. Relevant notes from 17 December call: 
      1. Should R&S encourage the release of eduPersonAssurance as a "SHOULD" value, in support of REFEDS Assurance Framework?
      2. Value of "no assurance" would have to be include
      3. 31% Yes; 6% No; 38% Optional is bogus; require it or leave it out; 25% Need more info
        1. Perhaps go back to this Assurance with how to indicate no value; it can't be required if it doesn't exist
        2. For the "No" vote, because it will massively reduce the number of IdPs that can/will release R&S as defined in 2.0
        3. General input is that this would be nice to have, but not MUST have to make decisions on their side; note that the NIH and other SPs are starting to require this information
        4. Assurance does imply liability, which may also complicate matters

  3. Home Organization use case (Andrew Morgan and Christos Kanellopoulos )

    1. This item may be moved to the next call
  4. Proposal to require DisplayName (Petersen )
    1. This item may be moved to the next call


Notes

  1. Recap of consensus so far
    1. 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)
    2. eduPersonScopedAffiliation will become a required value
    3. R&S will require privacy statements
    4. Encouraging the use of eduPersonAssurance requires further discussion with the Assurance Working group
    5. subject-id should be listed as the new identifier
    6. R&S 1.3 and R&S 2.0 can co-exist; no migration detail will be included in the spec itself.
    7. ePPN and targeted ID to both be removed from R&S 2.0
    8. Information on OIDC requirements will be moved to R&S 2.1 (after the OIDF OIDCre working group has formal documentation in this space)

  2. eduPersonAssurance and RAF (Jule Ziegler)

    1. Relevant notes from 17 December call: 
      1. Should R&S encourage the release of eduPersonAssurance as a "SHOULD" value, in support of REFEDS Assurance Framework?
      2. Value of "no assurance" would have to be include
      3. 31% Yes; 6% No; 38% Optional is bogus; require it or leave it out; 25% Need more info
        1. Perhaps go back to this Assurance with how to indicate no value; it can't be required if it doesn't exist
        2. For the "No" vote, because it will massively reduce the number of IdPs that can/will release R&S as defined in 2.0
        3. General input is that this would be nice to have, but not MUST have to make decisions on their side; note that the NIH and other SPs are starting to require this information
        4. Assurance does imply liability, which may also complicate matters

  3. Home Organization use case (Andrew Morgan and Christos Kanellopoulos )

    1. This item may be moved to the next call
  4. Proposal to require DisplayName (Petersen )
    1. This item may be moved to the next call
  • No labels