Hi everyone -- I'm splitting this feature out from the "Guest Access" feature request so that you can weigh in on this specific issue and provide feedback for it here. Please write in the comments what you would like to see with Federation and I will incorporate it into this description. -Suphatra
#1 -- When our team have a live call meeting we can not add people to the call that doesn't belong to the team, even if they are from the same company. Additionally can we brought client which will be federated.
#2 -- Need to be able to P2P chat/call/screen share with federated partners and other Office 365 tenants that are trusted by default. Need to be able to add all of these same people into meetings.
Of the two items in this request, #1 is complete and available.
- is still in the works.
This is part of the convergence roadmap – https://skypeandteams.blob.core.windows.net/artefacts/Skype%20for%20Business%20to%20Teams%20Capabilities%20Roadmap.pdf
As more details become available for item #2 I will share them with you.
Kirk Foutts commented
I need to add federated users to a Team. I'm not talking about Chat or call or meetings, I mean add to a team. I also want this for my users that are in Teams at other organizations. Because they are guests, our org can not govern their actions, no DLP for example.
I want to add federated users to my teams.
I want our policies to apply to our users who are working in other teams.
Seems this is a bit too hard?
Love Teams, and so do our clients... But is NOT ready to replace Skype for Business because you cannot chat to external federated users without logging off! If you federate an external domain (some other Microsoft 365 tenant, perhaps a customer or supplier), then there is a HUGE problem: you can only be "present" in ONE tenant at a time!. Microsoft have scripted a button on your login name in Teams that literally logs you OFF and back ON - they call it "switching". If you try to send a chat or message to an external contact who is also a Microsoft tenant then you can't - they will not get it. If they send you one, you will not get it until you "switch" to be present in their tenant team. The worst part is that there is no notifications to suggest that you might need to sign off/on (switch)! So, Teams is a great product that allows you to chat with external guests....until those guests become subscribers of Microsoft 365, at which point the definition of "federated" is spun 360° by Microsoft as you are now BANNED from chatting to them until you "switch" and log off your tenant. This behavior is the death of Teams. I wish Microsoft would explain publically why they have imposed this limitation; gone is SFB where we could chat with ANY other external user of Skype for Business.
Ben Stegink commented
Any updates on federation? Been almost 9 months since the last update, would love to see all the federation functionality brought across the finish line.
Please federate using the open source Matrix protocol (https://www.matrix.org). We want to be able to communicate with other businesses that don't use Microsoft Office.
Just like email would never have fully worked if open, federated protocols were not used (like IMAP/SMTP/POP3), Microsoft Teams will not fully meet business needs if it stays an isolated silo.
Stephan Lang commented
any updates on this particular Case? Looks like Teams federation with s4b-onprem/s4b-online and Teams is working…
searching for email in cmd bar, and choose search external...
but is it allready possible to have federation with public skype too?
Julian Knight commented
This is enormous for us. We are building a next-generation ICT service for health and social care. We have users that need to collaborate across many tenancies - some with SfB and some with Teams.
This is critical for Teams to become an enterprise service.
Is there any plans to allow Federation like SharePoint Online or Skype for Business on-prem? Where I can partner/Federate with an entire company without doing it user by user?
Akira Ueda commented
We have three companies with different domains and all three are federated on o365. We can see each others calender but can not add anyone on Teams. How do we setup to see names on other tenants on federated domain?
Is the federation feature already working to chat to another user from a different domain?
We need to collaborate/chat to other users of our company that has a different domain name and having a different O365 subscription (not under our tenant).
David McKnight commented
I need federation with government clients. They see us using Teams, and can't understand why we can't collaborate with it. It's on the roadmap for GCC -- the sooner the better! Thx.
Angie Fletcher commented
This is definitely big for us. We tried to add those who are not sitting in our tenant (on-prem environment using QCS to share free/busy and GAL) as well as, a separate tenant (same company too) using QCS too to federate. This federation we have has not allowed us to add these users as guest, even though they are part of our company.
Any update on this one?
Casper Frank-Stender commented
My primary usage for SfB is the open federation with various other companies. Teams can never be a replacement for SfB if it does not offer this functionality.
Akira Ueda commented
Subsidally compaies also use Teams but they always have to switch between tenants. It is a MUST to have Federation like other Office365 applications.
Henry Pei commented
We shouldn't need to switch tenant back and forth - all teams should come under one roof!
Christian Gustafson commented
Personally, it would be a great advantage to see all my teams and channels in a single view and not to "switch tenant" back and forth all day, but pulling the teams and chats from other tenants to my primary Teams view.
christian hasselbalch commented
without this we cannot really proceed with teams
JW Walton commented
Federation is a must to move away from SfB!
Paul McConnell commented
Any tool that doesn't allow you to add team members that are not part of your organization is doomed.
This must be version 2.0. Maybe by 3.0 we'll have that necessary functionality.