CTAB Call of Wed. Jan. 2, 2019
- Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair)
- Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska
David Bantz, University of Alaska
Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2
Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison -
Chris Hable, University of Michigan
Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies
Ann West, Internet2
Albert Wu, Internet2
Emily Eisbruch, Internet2
[AI] (TomB and MC) do outreach to CTAB candidates to answer any questions about CTAB
[AI] (Albert) bring roadmap group – DavidW and ChrisW and JonM (if available) - together for 2nd week in January
[AI] Albert create a strawman for the public docket (done)
MC and TomB will reach out to the CTAB nominees
CTAB has accepted all of the nominees, pending a chat with them by MC and TomB.
The process after the chat is to submit a CTAB slate to InCommon Steering for formal acceptance.
InCommon Steering will able to vote in Feb.
CTAB may want to invite the nominees to join CTAB calls sooner as guests
2019 CTAB Roadmap
Albert to schedule CTAB Roadmap call with DavidB and Chris W in 2nd week of Jan.
Jon is interested but may not be available.
Possible Work topics
Dispute process for Phase 1
Consensus process for "Academic IdPs implement R&S" as an enhancement to BE
Consensus process to add SIRTFI to BE as meeting BE #3 for IdPs and SPs
Consensus process to add errorURL to BE metadata expectations
Other CDRP topics:
IdPs susceptible to ROBOT attack
IdPs still running shib v2 or other end-of-life federating technologies
Baseline Expectations Next Steps
Good progress in entities meeting Baseline Expectations
All entities: 3951 of 4535 meet the metadata expectation (87%)
IdPs: 492 of 527 meet the metadata expectation (93%)
SPs: 3459 of 4008 meet the metadata expectation (86%)
Orgs: 676 of 756 meet the metadata expectation for all entities (89%)
No new requests for extensions
Most R1s have met baseline, except two of them
Need to decide action plan for orgs that have not met BE nor requested an extension
There are about 30 priority 5 organizations not meeting Baseline.
Sooner or later we must contact them as part of dispute resolution
How do we get the best contact for the outreach to the priority 5s?
See info around docket: http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.118.1
Could ask Internet2 Community Engagement staff to follow up if outreach from CTAB does not produce results
Need to nail down how we publish the public docket,
Suggestion to draft an article for newsletter with a link to the docket
Pending newsletter article listing orgs not in compliance may create some urgency
Need a list that can easily be referenced
Perhaps leverage the page we have now https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/BE/Baseline+Expectations+Adherence+by+Organization
Regarding process of sending most egregious / most important orgs not meeting baseline to Steering , process starts with some personal outreach
In some cases, service management team is working on it.
For public info could use: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/BE/Baseline+Expectations+Adherence+by+Organization
This lacks info on what’s happening for those not meeting BE
Create the docket intentionally
Suggestion to retain the history
To add an org to the docket, there should be a CTAB vote and a record of that vote
Need 30 or 40 more orgs to meet baseline to achieve 95% meeting Baseline
Docket should be under the Baseline website or wiki
Private docket makes sense as a wiki page, private to CTAB
Public docket is a table in a wiki page, listing the current state
Name entity IDs on private document only
Separate IDPs from SPs
[AI] Albert create a strawman for the public docket
Next CTAB Call: Wed. Jan 9 at 4pm ET