Integration of Discovery Service
skoranda at gmail.com
Tue May 5 21:02:27 EDT 2015
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/5/15, 7:00 AM, "Peter Schober" <peter.schober at univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>Not that any of this matters to the thread:
>>* Rod Widdowson <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> [2015-05-05 12:33]:
>>> > 2) Centralized Discovery Service:
>>> > If there are more IDP's then this is better.
>>> No. Each scale similarly.
>>> The CDS is better if:
>>> - You are a federation and need to provide a scalable (by SP number)
>>> back stop for those SPs who chose to not deploy an EDS.
>>I'd still rather deploy a Shib SP with the EDS specifically for the
>>purpose of providing a "fallback" central DS than run the CDS.
>>Or use Lukas' SWITCHwayf.
> We think so too, that's why we're pretty much ready to kill the CDS as part of the V2 EOL. If that panics anybody, particularly any consortium members, now's a good time to yell.
I would not use the word "panic", but LIGO (a small consortium member)
is preparing right now to roll out the CDS into production.
While the EDS (at each SP) has worked well for us technically, our
users have come to us and asked that we deploy a centralized discovery
service instead. The Shibboleth CDS appeared to be the best choice at
the time we decided to move forward.
More information about the users