CACTI call of April 16, 2019
- Chris Phillips, CANARIE (chair)
- Marina Adomeit, GEANT project
- Rob Carter, Duke
- Jessica Coltrin, Portland State University, liaison from InCommon TAC
- Nathan Dors, U Washington
- Jill Gemmill, Clemson
- Tom Jordan, University of Wisc - Madison
- Christos Kanellopoulos, GEANT
- Les LaCroix, Carleton College
- Kevin Morooney
- Ann West
- Steve Zoppi
- Nick Roy
- Emily Eisbruch
- Mike Zawacki
- Warren Anderson, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee /LIGO
- Tom Barton, University of Chicago
- Karen Herrington, Virginia Tech
- Todd Higgins, Franklin & Marshall College
New Action Items
AI (MikeZ, NickR, Rob Carter) discuss drafting eduroam TAC charter
- Review the CACTI FIM4R recommendations and consider priorities for the discussion, strategies for helping us identify and converge on a common set of priorities.
Baseline Expectations Update
- CTAB developed and implemented Baseline Expectations for Trust in Federation to raise trust across the board, https://www.incommon.org/federation/baseline/
- Did away with the older Participants Operations Practices (POP), which did not scale well
- CTAB developed Baseline Expectations (BE) for all participants in the InCommon Federation (SPs , IDP, and Federation Operator)
- BE was put into place over past year
- All participants were asked to adhere by Dec 14, 2018
- CTAB reached out to all the organizations not meeting BE
- Notice to remove on May 15, 2019 those entities we have not been able to reach and that are not meeting BE
- There are 16 orgs with entities on the list, AnnW emailed those yesterdayVisahq.com
- AnnW has also reached out to “bilateral” entities with a notice
- CTAB has not put the bilateral entities on the list to be removed from metadata as of May 15. They represent lower list
- This is a watershed moment. We have never intentionally removed an InCommon participant because they did not meet a community standard.
- There will be a note to the inCommon Participants list about entities that are being removed from metadata
Issue of Certain Service Providers Not Embracing Multilateral Federation
- It was noted there are challenges and disappointments of certain Service Providers not doing multilateral trust
Continue prioritizing CACTI FIM4R recommendations
- Build on last meetings outcomes focusing on the 5 areas we highlighted:
- services to end users
- software dev
- infrastructure as a service
- outreach and education
- Where does Baseline Expectations fit in the above 5 area?
- It crosses into several of these 5 areas.
- Perhaps most strongly, infrastructure as a service
- Focus of conversation: to identify high priority items/quick wins in the above areas
- Component Architects Group will provide input to CACTI on their proposed plans in about 2 months.
Collaboration as a service is being worked on in several venues / programs / contexts:
- InCommon TAC IDP as a Service WG
- Internet2 Collaboration Platform - this is a long term strategy to use Trusted Access Platform to streamline creation of working groups using Confluence, email lists, JIRA
- Q: this is being driven by the needs of Working Groups and perhaps not by needs of researchers? A: yes, but this Internet2 Collaboration Platform work will enhance the Trusted Access Platform and help the research community
- Hope to eventually leverage the Internet2 Collab Platform for one stop shopping into services the community finds of use
- Important to capture lessons learned as we roll out the Internet2 Collab Platform. For example to take note of how much staff time is needed to roll out collab infrastructure.
- There is current effort to take lessons learned from TIER program and use them towards the Trusted Access Platform
- Jill offered to help with research outreach
- Two slide decks may be needed, for different audiences
- It was noted that the GEANT eduteams project is around working on facilitating collaborations.
- In Collaboration as a Service, is there duplication of effort between Internet2 and GEANT?
- These are primarily complementary efforts
- It was noted that discussions are in progress on support models between CILogon and Internet2
CACTI formation of InCommon eduroam Technical Advisory Committee
- identifying interested CACTI members and/or other interested parties to work on a eduroam TAC charter.
- MikeZ: there is a need for eduroam advisory body. This is not so technical, it’s a way to engage with the community around business operations, contractual questions,
- Currently eduroam engagement with the community has been ad hoc, want something more formal, especially as we look at eduroam k12 deployments
- A first step may be development of a charter
- Draft charter can help provide a framewor
- Next Steps AI (MikeZ, NickR, Rob Carter) discuss drafting eduroam TAC charter
- It was noted that InCommon has Steering Committee as top level and TAC under that.
- For eduroam, we need one group to be both the policy and technical advisory group. Needs to be cross cutting.
- Historical perspective: The founding InCommon TAC drove architecture, wrote the FOP, Federation Operating Practices.
- This new eduroam body would report to CACTI and then to the PAG?
Kevin: it may depend on the types of issues being tackled
- Important to involve some networking people in the eduroam TAC, this can be specified in the eduroam TAC charter
- Eduroam is perceived to be static service, but things , strategic and technical that are happening in the wireless space that require need for change.
- It was noted that campuses running eduroam IdPs also need to support users in setting up their devices
- Glimpse of what EU confederation does (note, this is a group of 28 countries, not just one):
- URN registry transfer
- Send a last message to MACE-DIR list telling people to move discussions to the REFEDS schema list, then mark the li st as fully moderated, auto-reply should direct people to new list. (Keith H volunteered to do this)
- web authentication (Fido/W3C Webauthn)
- Close-out of MACE-DIR transition to REFEDS
Next Call: Tuesday, April 30, 2019