[Fim4l] LexisNexis Advance

[Peter Schober]

I can neither understand what you're trying to say not what this has
to do with the specific message you are replying to (which was about
Jos' statement about maybe adopting use of the "anonymous"
terminology which I advise against).
-peter

Full quote below because I wouldn't know what to quote.

* Jiri Pavlik <jiri.pavlik at techlib.cz> [2021-03-17 18:24]:
> Hi,
> 
> at the REFEDS entity categories specs there is:
> 
> "Service Providers SHOULD limit their data requirements to the bundle of
> attributes defined in Section 4."
> 
> at 5. Service Provider Requirements paragraph.
> 
> IMHO it leaves a room for FIM4L to specify whether samlPairwiseID,
> edPersonScopedAffialition,
> eduPersonEntitlement should be requested by SPs as required or optional.
> And what actually
> means required and optional for the attributes release from IdPs to SPs :-)
> 
> Best
>              Jiri
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:43 AM Peter Schober <peter.schober at univie.ac.at>
> wrote:
> 
> > * Jos Westerbeke <jos.westerbeke at eur.nl> [2021-03-17 09:31]:
> > > We (on this FIM4L list) have chosen (early 2019) not to use the word
> > > anonymous because it pretends that you are anonymous, which is not,
> > > or at least disputable.
> >
> > There is no such thing as an anonymous federated login.
> > So this terminology serves to confuse more if anything.
> >
> > -peter