CTAB Wed April 10, 2019


  • David Bantz, University of Alaska (vice-chair)
  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2 
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison
  • John Pfeifer, University of Maryland 
  • Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies 
  • Ann West, Internet2 
  • Albert Wu, Internet2 
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2   


  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair) 
    Chris Hable, University of Michigan
  • John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab  
  • Adam Lewenberg, Stanford 
  • Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago
  • Brad Christ, Eastern Washington University 
  • Eric Goodman, UCOP - TAC Representative to CTAB

New Action Item

[AI ] JonM, David, JohnH and Albert work on the next steps for the next phase of Baseline Expectations, (suggestion to work on this via CTAB Discuss Slack Channel)


 2018 Baseline Expectations   

    • InCommon Steering Approved CTAB’s Action Plan regarding next steps for the 2018 Baseline Expectations program at their April 1, 2019 meeting,
    • The plan was called InCommon Baseline Expectations
 - Steering Committee Report and Request for Action

Review Communication (BE) Plan  

    • The BE Closing Communications Plan is a suggested action plan for various groups/categories not meeting Baseline Expectations
    • There are several suggested communication email templates at bottom of the doc.
    • CTAB members  should review and comment.
    • The plan is to send out one more notice to InCommon Execs of organizations not meeting Baseline Expectations
    • This will be a "heads up" that CIOs will be receiving a letter on April 15 of intent to remove the org from metadata as of May 15.
    • There is an email from CTAB chair  to InCommon Participants planned for Wed. April 17, 2019  to describe the decision, timeline, and impact
    • Community message is last ditch effort to get attention of the organizations that have not yet met Baseline Expectations.
    • Important to lead with a statement about the impact, we are trying to get your attention… the following entities are at risk from being removed from the InCommon Federation.  Albert will make those edits to the letters.
    • Important to clarify that CTAB is the requestor to remove entities not in compliance with Baseline  Expectations
    • Albert will update the doc and send  a revised version to CTAB (DONE)

2019 CTAB / Baseline Expectations Roadmap  

    • There is work on 2019 Proposed Baseline Expectations Requirements 
    • Grouped by core themes: security, info accuracy and usability
    • Used to drive ultimate goal of being research collaboration ready
    • New idea proposed by Nick Roy for Security category:   Encrypt Service Endpoints - All Service Provider endpoints MUST be TLS encrypted (https://)
    • It was noted that more explanation of privacy requirement could be helpful and more detail on how to provide security

    • What is the best way to move the roadmap toward community consensus? How much detail? Timeline?
    • Suggestion to look systematically at the best way to revise baseline expectations moving forward. 
    • It makes sense to combine previous Baseline Expectations with new requirements
    • We have high-level principle statements, see http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.34.1  and we should build on and revise those
    • Perhaps we align the new suggested items with the existing BE items
    • Keep in mind the InCommon participants agreement language around BE
    •  https://internet2.app.box.com/v/InCommon-Participation-Agreemt
    • Are these new requirements or optimization of existing requirements?
    • Should we create a checklist, based on SP or IdP?
      • In the Assurance Profiles (bronze and silver) we had a long checklist and it was not too successful
    • It's important to be sure the requirements are in language that CIOs will understand
    • Suggestion to have several levels of language, intent, then more detail

    • Another point of view is that there will be evolving expectations with new technology and new threats, etc.  
    • The next phase could be more than just a clarification of the previous BE.
    • Appropriate to “beef up” the requirements to add more value to the InCommon Federation
      • Suggestion for a requirement to use “traffic light” protocol for SIRTFI 
    • Refining, modernizing the existing framework
    • CTAB members will work with Albert on defining the proposed path forward and drafting what the new baseline 2.4 might look like.
    • [AI ] JonM , David, JohnH and Albert will work on next steps for the next phase of Baseline Expectations  , will work on this via Slack channel  

Next CTAB Call : Wed April 24, 2019



  • No labels