Consent / upgrades

[Tom Scavo]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, David Langenberg <davel at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> The default on new-installs should definitely be on, but for upgrades, I'd
> rather see it behave as v2 does today (no consent).

I certainly understand your (deployer-centric) PoV but from a
federation perspective, the game-changing potential of consent is
diminished if it ships with default = off.

Tom

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/14, 7:07 PM, "David Langenberg" <davel at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >That's true, but at the same time, turning on consent (at least here)
>> >will take an act of a committee and involve a bunch of sign-offs for
>> >usability, testing, etc.  Upgrading to IdPv3 without turning on consent
>> >just requires sending a FYI to my announce list & a 5 minute
>> >change-advisory call.
>>
>> Sure, but I'm not saying you couldn't turn it off with a switch, I'm just
>> wondering what the default should be with an eye on the community as a
>> whole given that unfortunately or not most places just run a lot of very
>> vanilla stuff without much regard for why.
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
>> dev-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Langenberg
> Identity & Access Management
> The University of Chicago
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> dev-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net