Non Incommon SPs

[Michael Hodges]

Their rationale in our case has been based on the need to defray the costs
to deploy custom code to support us (even though we are not their first).
 The fact that we aren't their first deployment fueled my initial
skepticism since how many hours could a 2nd or 3rd (or higher) custom
deployment really entail?  This is a one time charge BTW.

The feedback here is much appreciated; I'm ready to get back into the ring
and negotiate this some more.

 - Michael

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ann West <awest at internet2.edu> wrote:

> $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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20120717/2e345f51/attachment.html