CTAB Call May 28, 2024

Attending  

  • Warren Anderson, LIGO 
  • Pål Axelsson, SUNET  
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska (chair)    
  • Tom Barton, Internet2, ex-officio 
  • Richard Frovarp,  North Dakota State  
  • Mike Grady, Unicon   
  • Kyle Lewis,  Research Data and Communication Technologies 
  • Johnny Lasker, Internet2  
  • Emily Eisbruch, Independent  
  • Albert Wu, Internet2     


Regrets:

  • Ercan Elibol, Florida Polytechnic University 
  • Matt Eisenberg, NIAID 
  • Gabor Eszes, Univ of Virginia (rep from CACTI)   
  • Scott Green, Eastern Washington University
  • Christopher Keith, Brown University 
  • Ryan McDaniel, University of Alaska Anchorage    
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison (vice chair)   
  • Andrew Scott, Internet2 
  • Rick Wagner, UCSD
  • Kathy Wright, Clemson, (InCommon TAC rep to CTAB )  
    Kevin Morooney, Internet2  
  • Ann West, Internet2 


Discussion

  • Intellectual Property Reminder  - All Internet2 activities are governed by the  Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework.
  • Public Content Notice  - CTAB minutes are public documents. Please let the CTAB and note taker know if you plan to discuss something of a sensitive nature.
  • Agenda Bash

Working Group Updates

  • CACTI
    • Discussion about InCommon Futures 2 and communication channels
    • Dmitri Zagidulin, from the Digital Credential Consortium, has joined CACTI
  • eduroam Advisory Council
    •  David reached out the Brett B, chair, as they are looking at Baseline Expectations for eduroam. 
    • Albert noted there will be some collaboration between eduroam Advisory Council and CTAB
    • The eAC is just getting going on looking at baseline expectations 
  • InCommon TAC
      •  David will work with this working group effort

    • Deployment Guidance for REFEDS Entity Categories - consultation closed; WG addressing comments
      •   Many comments, doc has been updated
      •   TAC agreed to publish the updated version
      •   Albert has requested a DOI document ID 

    • TAC reactions to Futures2 five areas of work, will discuss further on an upcoming call

  • SIRTFI 
    • nothing significant to report
    • today is 2nd script-writing session with WG
    • prepping for practice exercise for WG in June (this is for the WG)
    • train them on how to run the exercise)
    • will prep TTX call for participation to go out right after labor day weekend in September

Tribal Colleges and Universities Cyberinfrastructure Workshop updates

    • Goal: help colleges develop IT strategic plan and build up cyber capabilities 
    • Takeaways
    • There are 38 total colleges 18? Colleges were In attendance 
    • Many have about 100 -  200 students
    • Many are located in remote areas
    • Often they have insufficient bandwidth
    • IT teams are often between 1 and 5 staff for entire campus
    • Colleges are closely tied to the tribal councils
    • IT directors are closely connected to campus research initiatives 
      •   That can be a plus
    • SKC Salish Koonetai  https://www.skc.edu/  joined InCommon and has tested successfully
    • Turtle Mountain Community College is in talks with InCommon
    • Several others expressed interest
    • We hope to help these institutions whether they join InCommon or not
    • NSF CC* grant was represented at the conference
    • There is an effort to help the tribal colleges apply for CC* grant funds
    • Will there be work for CTAB?
      • Perhaps not immediately. To help very small schools it’s important to make joining as a consortium more natural.
      • Eduroam has a notion of “support organization.”  InCommon needs to develop this concept
      • InCommon should likely promote the Service Provider side of the equation


Moving forward / Next steps on RAF2.0 Guidelines

  • Kyle will work on spinning up a working group in June 
  • Soliciting internal and external participation
  • Guidelines for participants on using RAF
  • New edition of: TI.157.1 (REFEDS Assurance Framework Implementation Guidance for InCommon Participants, recommendations section)
  • The focus is on updating the Assured Access doc based on RAF2.
  • Kyle: There is a chicken and egg problem with RAF2
  • Those who conform to InCommon Baseline Expectations are in compliance with RAF2
  • If signaling RAF2 becomes part of Baseline Expectations, this will help the process of moving the community forward
  • Currently NIH/NIAID  Is not formally requiring RAF2 
  • No service of NIH is requiring identity assurance
  • Much distributed authority in NIH
  • Albert: we focus a lot on getting the IDP to do things, we don’t often ask the SP to explicitly declare what they need, this leads to inconsistent behavior
  • Should we ask SP to specify identity proofing needs?
  • Asking about identity proofing needs will force the SP to think about identity assurance as an item they should care about.
  •  This might create demand for IDPs to implement ??
  • One strategy: InCommon could create expectation of federation operators to ask their SPs to specify identity proofing needs.
  • Potential questions:
    • what level of MFA do you need for your operations?
    • What is needed for optimal experience for the end user?
    • What do you absolutely require?
    • What are the business requirements of your service?
  • NIST requires AAL2
  • NIH/NIAID accepts MFA profile
  • LIGO experience: we would like assurance to be signaled, but we will step you up, using proxy
  • It’s tricky to ask SPs what they need
  • Note that MFA and RAF are different
  • RAF does not have request mechanism from IDP at login, MFA does
  • Europe tries to have IAP medium for every user
  • There is step up 
  • Having a “killer service” helps
  • Albert: InCommon is about to move  site admin access to Federation Manager  to rely entirely on federated access, single sign on.
  • Could make a case to demand IAL2, but it is a tall order to ask all IDPs to have two people to assert IAL2 or IAL high. 
  • Thus starting by asking the IDP to ask its SPs probably makes sense.
  • Albert: as part of operationalizing baseline expectations, we are requiring regular attestation of conformance with baseline expectations
  • Step one is for an SP to articulate what they are looking for
  • We provide a reasonable SP default setting, we can decide what attributes are required by default
  • Start with positive gold star approach
  • Put out communications stating “by meeting Baseline Expectations you can assert RAF2” 
  • See if that gets the ball rolling
  • Identity assurance in allocation of Zoom accounts is an interesting case study
  • Discussion to be continued in future calls: query approach, badging approach, get community input on this


Next CTAB Call: Tuesday, June 11, 2024

  • No labels