how would we suggest improving the user experience at this SP

[Tom Scavo]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> I think it's reasonable to start using these criteria as a basis to decide
> what IdPs to offer a choice of. No error URL, no choice.
>
> Maybe what we need is to start talking less about assurance for users and
> more about assurance for IdPs.

I totally agree.

> We've talked about tagging IdPs with
> various marks for best practices, but I really think we need a "package"
> of practices to capture into a mark of some kind.

Something like this? https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/x4HYAg

> But to do that, we have
> to be able to monitor and respond to lapses too, and that's where this all
> seems to fall apart.

Not necessarily. An IdP operator could self-assert "trustworthy,"
"interoperable," and/or "discoverable," which would automatically
insert the corresponding entity attribute. That, in and of itself,
would be a useful exercise. In addition, the fedop could actively
monitor a subset of the self-asserted items (such as errorURL) at its
discretion. Regular, annoying emails (or other notifications,
preferably mobile) would be completely justified (and probably
welcome) in this case.

Tom