storing "data transparency" in consent records

[Cantor, Scott]

> Right, so I'll follow up on the users list about how to label entities with e.g.
> "isRandS" or "infoOnly" or whatever (possibly following the example Keith
> shared a while back) and then look at getting at those variables from within
> velocity (possibly via springConext).
> Metadata-driven config flags will heavily factor into this, I guess.

Typically what I would do is define beans based on the EntityAttributePredicate class in OpenSAML that know how to evaluate the tags, and then create different ones to check for the different conditions involved and inject them via the custom object hook we have for all the templates.

Then you just have to do something like #if ($custom["RSCondition"].apply($rpmd))

I don't know offhand whether the RP metadata is right in the template or not, but it's accessible without much work.

> Amending the existing storage record (to differentiate between, say, "consent"
> and "transparency duty") would only be necessary if a UI were available, or if
> the APIs existed to access those records to build such a UI.
> (I doubt someone will implement a Consent Manager based on an decidedly
> undocumented format.)

No, but if people want to record something new now with what's already built, it would be there later for reporting.

-- Scott