Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair)
David Bantz, University of Alaska (vice-chair)
Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago
Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2
Brad Christ, Eastern Washington University
Eric Goodman, UCOP - TAC Representative to CTAB
John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab
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
Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska
Chris Hable, University of Michigan
Adam Lewenberg, Stanford
Draft Report to InCommon Steering to Close out Baseline Expectations Phase 1
There are two documents to be presented to InCommon Steering
1. Exec summary
this will go to Document Repository
2. InCommon Baseline Expectations Closeout plan, this is an Appendix listing orgs with entities not meeting Baseline Expectations
Broken into relevant categories
Recommended actions are based on risk level
There is also an Appendix with summary of outreach that has occurred
Decision: on March 28, 2019 there will be an announcement that April 8 we are turning on enforcement of consequences for those not meeting Baseline Expectations
April 15, 2019 we will announce to community the results of the InCommon Steering decision
May 15, 2019 will move to remove entities not meeting Baseline Expectations from metadata
For bilateral entities, will not remove from federation, but will notify the bilateral partners if we can find that info
Suggestion to add more detail in the closeout plan report around handling of bilateral entities
Question about using the term “closeout”; could sound too final since there are next phases of Baseline Expectations
Decision: remove the word “final”
Should report be seen as coming from CTAB to InCommon Steering? Instead of from “ InCommon Ops and CTAB” YES, DONE
Risk Level to federation, in what context? We should define this better .
Risk to reputation?
Risk of leaving these entities not meeting baseline?
What is the downside to taking this entity out of metadata?
Decision: change “risk” to “impact to the federation of recommended action ”
Albert made this change this
Best way to handle test IDPs that do not meet baseline? Suggestion to remove them
Albert reports that there is only one test IDP not meeting Baseline. Albert resolved that issue in the doc.
Albert provided an overview of the rollback plan so if need be, it will be possible to place an entity back into federation.
This addresses the risk that site admin sees entity in edit mode and can’t comply with BE, and we need to work to accommodate them.
It was noted that SPs on the list of entities not meeting baseline is an area of concern
Suggestion to add info on which entities have not paid their InCommon invoice
[AI] Albert will add to the report info on which entities that have not met Baseline Expectations have not paid their InCommon invoice
Albert has started drafting notice about mandatory enforcement in Federation Manager and will share that and hopes to send tomorrow.
Tom moved that CTAB approve the report. ChrisW seconded
There will be a pre-read ask to InCommon Steering
Albert will draft slides for Monday April 1, 2019 InCommon Steering call
Next CTAB Call: Wed. April 10, 2019