Identities from legacy domains

[pchainho]

The current specs to support interoperability with legacy domains proposes the possibility to associate a second legacy identity to hyperties when interworking with legacy services.

One option could be not to associate this second legacy identity during deploy time but only when the Hyperty is interworking with legacy services. It would require from the IdM:

• to have identities associated with legacy domains: let's call it "Legacy Identities"
• when the outgoing message is targeting the legacy domain, such "legacy identity" would prevail against the identity associated with sender hyperty

[sbecot]

You may think I'm again not very kind, but probably it would be wise to finish the ongoing work about identity before going to new developments.
Currently there is no possibility to select an identity other than google one, the graph connector isn't available, the Idps of Orange have not been used/integrated.

[jmcrom]

I agree with @sbecot and I think the main legacy interworking (IMS) may be addressed in D6.2.

Abot the architecture displayed in the dedicated page I have multiple questions: what exactly is IWStub ? some kind of ProtoStub ? where does it come from ? what impact on the "legacy domain" ? what is IWHyperty ?

[pchainho]

these are specs for phase 2 and we are analysing the impact of legacy interworking in the core framework.

[emmelmann-fokus]

I support @sbecot, we should finish the functionality of existing areas before going into new domains. @aoncorici is driving the interoperability issue for D6.2 sufficiently. Any additional work items should follow solutions for having more than one identity provider.

[pchainho]

@emmelmann-fokus these are only specs and, as previously agreed, this is a topic to be included in D3.5 to analyse the impact of legacy interworking in the core framework. This has been a joint work between WP3 and WP6.

[Ricardo-Chaves]

The IDM component (regarding phase 1) is basically done.
It accepts/uses IDs from google am MS. Other OIDC compatible IdP can be (with relative ease) integrated.

Nevetheless, I agree that interoperability with legacy domains should be left for D6.2. There are many aspects that are unclear to me at the moment, related with the how to interact with legacy domains via rethink, and I suspect that many issues will appear that need to be thought and discussed to solved them.

Definitely to be discussed in the coming meeting.

[pchainho]

@Ricardo-Chaves there is an impact on the Core Framework and namely on the Core Runtime that we should take into account in D3.5.

We should not leave the discussion for the F2F meeting. I'm afraid that would be too late.

The high level view of the integration seems clear too me (pls see here ) but of course it still requires to be completed as noted by @jmcrom .

[jmcrom]

@pchainho given my concerns (see this issue) I would not say the high level view is clear

@Ricardo-Chaves I do not see any Identity GUI

[pchainho]

@jmcrom just check my comments :)

[gamdias]

@jmcrom The identity GUI is in this pull request reTHINK-project/dev-runtime-browser#57

There is a problem in the Runtime-browser that cannot use the new Runtime Core distributions. Because the identity GUI requires the new runtime core distribution, the example fails.
David is taking care of the issue and as soon as it is fixed I provide the instructions to run the example with the identity GUI.