CTAB Wed., June 19, 2019


  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair) 
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska (vice chair)
  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska 
  • Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago  
  • Brad Christ, Eastern Washington University 
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison  
  • Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies 
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2  


  • John Pfeifer, University of Maryland
  • Eric Goodman, UCOP - TAC Representative to CTAB 
  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan
  • John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab 
  • Adam Lewenberg , Stanford  
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2  
  • Ann West, Internet2
  • Albert Wu, Internet2

Action Items

  • [AI] MC will email CTAB to solicit a volunteer for the SIRTFI Task Force
  • [AI] Emily reserve CTAB Working Group meeting for TechEx (DONE)
  • [AI]  David edit to Baseline Expectations phase 2 cover letter to go with the survey



Sirtfi WG participation from CTAB

  • [AI] MC will email CTAB to solicit a volunteer for the SIRTFI  metadata accuracy Task Force

Baseline Expectations Phase 2

  • Straw timeline for next wave of BE - from now to TechEx time kick off - what are the milestones, when?
    • Hope to have work firmed up by 2019 TechEx - Dec 9 in New Orleans https://meetings.internet2.edu/2019-technology-exchange/
    • Working backward, this would mean Final draft of BE v2 - Nov. 10, 2019
    • Complete Community Consensus - 10/31
    • Set up formal community consensus structure (comm list, etc) 9/3
    • Produce first public draft of BE v2 - Aug 15
    • Gather community input for BE v2 - July 15  
    • Send out request for input to BE survey around start of July?
  • Letter to InCommon participants  on next phase of BE 
    • how do we structure the call for feedback/input to get the right kind of response?
    • elicit new insight or need CTAB had not considered
    • contain the scope enough so that it’s not a wild goose chase
    • don’t forget community consensus process

  • Use survey (Google Forms) approach  to determine what the hurdles might be to certain proposed new baseline elements
  • Question of how well can a commercial product COTS  implement MFA
  • IDPs running Oracle Identity Manager or Site Minder are challenged to federate with LIGO
  • Status as of last call - there was a letter drafted around BE Phase 2
  • While it was noted that there is some advantage to having open ended format (not a survey), CTAB decided  that on balance, it is easier to handle data from a survey than to collate open ended responses
  • Could collect info using a survey but not be bound to the survey “results.”
    • Some concern that we don’t want to be locked into a path
  • There was discussion on whether CTAB should  share the survey results
  • The survey might include an evaluation of baseline expectations phase 1 (At least summarize phase 1)
  • Then after summarizing phase 1, present the question of "What should be our next goals for enhancing interoperability?"
  • Then provide ideas  for BE phase 2 and ask for a ranking (in what order should there be implemented)
  • Survey should also include an ask for open ended thoughts on what should be added to BE phase 2 in addition to the items mentioned 
  • It will be helpful in the survey to gather concerns on certain suggestions for BE Phase 2
  • Explain that the Community Consensus process will follow this input gathering exercise
  • Include a draft timeline including the community consensus process
  • Bundling of items in BE Phase 2 during Community  Consensus?
    • Suggestion in Albert’s doc  for one community consensus process for all the items included in BE Phase 2, JonM also thought the consensus would be on a bundled package
    • Brett thought perhaps the items should be unbundled
    • DavidB: we probably don’t want to run through the community consensus process multiple times
  • Regarding GEANT code of conduct, see item 2.2 in the draft
    • Information received from IdPs is not shared with third parties without permission and is stored only when necessary for SP’s purpose
    •  Will one of the survey questions cover that?
    • This is important to Adam’s organization
    • Yes, can do
  • Survey should ask if responder is SP or IDP 
  • Ask for email address optionally
  • Would be helpful to have contact reference  for a survey  respondent who needs to know more about a proposal for phase 2
  • Collect info on what software is being used, to help correlate with what items they say will be difficult
  • Suggestion to include an option of “we already support this” for the items being proposed for BE Phase 2
  • Ask how important is this for the InCommon community?
  • Include opportunity for free text, on additional items  that would improve trust in SPs and IDPs in the federation
  • Should we send this survey to the REFEDs community?
  • Action Items
    • AI MC will send the google form to CTAB for  review (done)
    • AI Emily reserve CTAB Working Group meeting for TechEx (done)
    • AI David edit to BE phase 2 cover letter to be sent with the survey (done)

Next CTAB Call: Wed July 3, 2019 at 4pm ET


  • No labels