Non Incommon SPs

[Ann West]

$5K is substantially more than what the top tier Corporate Participant (revenue of $1 B USD) pays per year for InCommon participation. Is that per year or one time, Michael. 

If they are asking every InCommon Participant to pay that cost, they could be making a pretty penny that far exceeds their membership fees. 

Ann 

----- Original Message -----

> And I'm indeed dealing with an academic publisher; I suppose I should
> be a little less miffed.
> Thanks for the feedback.
> - Michael

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Nicole Harris <
> nicole at shibboleth.net > wrote:

> > Passing subscription charges for federation services back on to the
> > institution is certainly behaviour I've seen from academic
> > publishers, although it is often not as explicit it as this, just
> > wrapped up in the service cost. I'd say it would be unusual for
> > most
> > commercial vendors NOT to recoup federation fees from IdPs as part
> > of their business model. I guess you could argue that at least
> > these
> > guys are being completely upfront about it and not just hiding it
> > in
> > their product costs :-)
> 

> > On 17/07/2012 01:25, Michael Hodges wrote:
> 
> > > Somewhat related to this thread, I'm dealing with a vendor that
> > > *is*
> > > an InCommon member, but they are requesting a $5k premium for
> > > supporting with our IdP rather than directly accessing our LDAP
> > > server (have they no shame!). Has anyone run across this
> > > scenario?
> > > I've pushed back since it's hard to consider this to be a
> > > reasonable
> > > additional cost, but haven't yet prevailed.
> > 
> 

> > > - Michael
> > 
> 

> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bryan E. Wooten <
> > > bryan.wooten at utah.edu > wrote:
> > 
> 

> > > > Thank you all for the feedback. I don't know if it confirmation
> > > > bias
> > > > or not. But this type a quick response is what makes me a
> > > > proponent
> > > > of the open source (especially in Higher Ed) community. I would
> > > > never expect this response from any of the "big" vendors. I
> > > > thank
> > > > you.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > I am sure most of us deal with this level of conflict on a
> > > > daily
> > > > basis.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > We all know that funding is an issue and I feel it is my
> > > > responsibility to push back at vendors. This won't be the first
> > > > or
> > > > last. For me this is the 3rd HR / recruitment vendor I have had
> > > > the
> > > > pleasure of dealing with relating to SSO. Even an Incommon
> > > > can't
> > > > do
> > > > it right. Sigh.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > They all fail.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Best Regards.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Bryan
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > From: users-bounces at shibboleth.net [
> > > > users-bounces at shibboleth.net
> > > > ]
> > > > on behalf of Cantor, Scott [ cantor.2 at osu.edu ]
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:18 PM
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > To: Shib Users
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Subject: Re: Non Incommon SPs
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > On 7/16/12 7:01 PM, "Bryan E. Wooten" < bryan.wooten at utah.edu >
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >What are the steps we can make to make this possible? Do we
> > > > >require
> > > > >they
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >provide us with their SP's metadata or can we create that on
> > > > >our
> > > > >own. I
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >am also not sure about certificate exchange for SAML
> > > > >assertions.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > If you care, and if you decide you need to encrypt data to
> > > > them,
> > > > then
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > you'll have to have a way to verify their key. They will not
> > > > understand
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > what you mean, or why you care, but that's life. You can save
> > > > some
> > > > trouble
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > by not bothering with a key on their end if you can live with
> > > > the
> > > > data in
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > the clear in the messages.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > You may also, based on the eduPerson comment, have to create
> > > > custom
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > attribute encodings (or maybe even definitions) in your
> > > > resolver,
> > > > which is
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > a significant change.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > >Any idea the level of effort we will need to make this happen
> > > > >(man
> > > > >hours)?
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > There are too many variables to answer that. It can take me
> > > > minutes
> > > > to
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > several hours or even longer if I'm busy debugging their
> > > > implementation,
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > pen-testing it, finding bugs, sitting on phone calls explaining
> > > > to
> > > > them
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > why their code is broken. Not that I've ever done that.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > A lot of this comes down to whose data it is. If it's OSU's,
> > > > then
> > > > I
> > > > have
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > to care or I'm not doing my job. If it's not, then to be
> > > > honest,
> > > > they
> > > > can
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > do what they like to protect (or botch the protection of) their
> > > > own
> > > > data.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > -- Scott
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > --
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> > > > users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > --
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> > > > users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > --
> > 
> 
> > > To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> > > users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
> > 
> 
> > --
> 
> > Shibboleth Consortium Manager
> 
> > 5 Lancaster Place
> 
> > London WC2E 7EN
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
-- 

Ann West 
Assistant Director, 
Assurance and Community 
Internet2/InCommon/Michigan Tech 
awest at internet2.edu 
office: +1.906.487.1726 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20120717/318a8924/attachment-0001.html