InCommon Pilot Call
August 1, 2013
PARTICIPANTS: * *Steve Olshansky (Internet2), Elaine Alejo (Internet2), Andy Fleming (KanREN), Bernie A'cs (llinicloud/NCSA), Jim Peterson (IlliniCloud/NCSA), Jason (?) , (IlliniCloud NCSA), Bob Williams, David Dennis (Merit), Ann West (InCommon), Mark Johnson (MCNC), Dean Woodbeck (InCommon), George Laskaris (NJEDge), Mark Scheible (MCNC), Craig Stephenson (WiscNet) Scott Isaacson (Educational Service Unit Coordinating Council (NE)), , Jennifer Griffin (The Quilt)
TASKS:
*
MEETING NOTES:
1) Roll Call, Agenda Bash, Intellectual Property Rights Policy Reminder
http://www.internet2.edu/membership/ip.html
2) *Brief* updates from each of the 8 pilots
i) Bernie (NCSA)
(1) Had follow-up discussion with group from Nebraska. It was a positive call. Discussed multi-factor authentication, complications around older vs. younger kids. Challenges about basic anatomy of the state systems and how similar they are. Planning to follow up discussion in August. Continuing local and state efforts. Have formulated a set of working groups and published a community doc. It is oriented to the technical aspect of Identity management and policy relationships. Quite a few contributors have shown up. Have been in discussions with Aegis Identity about the potential of using their product. They would like to see a larger national audience and are asking other pilots to review their website http://community.illinicloud.org/.
ii) MCNC – Steve Thorpe is working with the community college on getting their IdP set up.
iii) Nebraska – Call with Illinois was positive. Started a working group with the university system to collaborate to help get the design together. This is a positive step in the effort and can benefit from each other’s experiences. Network Nebraska is a collaboration between the university system and the state CIO office. It serves a vast majority of school colleges and county government. It is a comprehensive network. The State Department of Education and the ESU Coordinating Council are attempting to work together in Identity Management.
iv) WiscNet – reaching out to pilot organizations for an update. There should be a one to two page communication that will be sent to the group
v) InCommon – Ann West has arranged for a Webinar about the InCommon PoP scheduled August 13. This will be archived. A Google doc was sent out to group. There is a proposal regarding sharing of the business practices. There are 3 different ways in working with InCommon.
(1) Taking on the registration authority (RA) functions, including vetting users and organizations. This is a trust element. There is an understanding that there are existing relationships within the community. If the community needs to reach out to K-12 there will be support.
(2) White label federation – This is where InCommon would run the federation on behalf of a state or regional. It may include government and law enforcement.
(3) Combination of the two. It would be a hybrid of metadata.
(4) There is a fourth model that is being worked on in a different group. The InCommon TAC (technical advisory committee) inter-federation subgroup is working on a model in which metadata is shared. The charter is being finalized. Stay tuned for more information. Merit has expressed interest in exploring that model.
(5) Working with the PilotDef Group to identify a regional to work with and hoping to have working business model of Phase I by the end of the year.
3) Support from InCommon (cont.): what do the pilots need, and how best to provide it? Artifacts to develop in conjunction with the pilots
a) Use cases
b) Case studies
c) Others TBD, capturing learning’s and guidance
4) CommIT project (Ann West) https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/InCAdmissions/Home
a) Basic issue with the admissions process is that you assign accounts (e.g. Penn State assigns 70K accounts a year with 90K applications). 25% or less actually attend. So tens-of-thousands of accounts are thrown away. This causes password reset and help desk issues etc. Do you want to give an account to everyone or just those who were accepted?
b) Matching is the second issue. If you are a student applying, you may have multiple accounts. It would be better to have one account.
c) Who is the person on the other end of the credential – social security numbers and financial details are involved.
d) Currently Application process involves increasing clarity and transparency of Identity Management
i) In the future it would be beneficial to have Identity assured from the very beginning though a CommIT credential and have a single sign on
(1) There would be a suite of services that would allow for this
ii) Vendors can tag test scores with an identifier
iii) It is a large InCommon Silver (LoA2) IdP.
(1) Would have rules of the road.
iv) Participants would advertise the CommIT credential
v) InCommon/Internet2, PESC, Georgetown, Penn State are involved in the project
vi) Next Steps
(1) Complete pilot platform,
(2) Call for participation for building the production version
(3) Assist with pilot
(4) Define production with pilot orgs
(5) Would like to provide the service for education without too much cost
(6) Looking to leverage corporate folks
e) Sample size for the pilot would be 4 or 5 but looking for them to have a tight scope outreach
f) The reaction at the AACRAO (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) Tech meeting was very positive
g) The process for exposing the student to this will primarily be done though advertising and high school guidance counselors
h) Being aware that is going on is valuable in the Federated Identity conversation
i) There has been a lot of discussion about perfecting and duplicating the process
5) InCommon POP Webinar Tuesday Aug 13 at 11:00 PM EDT
END OF CALL