InCommon Pilot Call

August 15, 2013


PARTICIPANTS: George Laskaris (NJEDge), Andy Fleming (KanREN), Bernie A'cs (llinicloud/NCSA), Jason (IlliniCloud NCSA), Ann West (InCommon), Mark Johnson (MCNC), Scott Isaacson (Educational Service Unit Coordinating Council (NE), Nicki Trinka (Merit), Jennifer Griffin (The Quilt), Mark Scheible MCNC), Jack Suess, UMBC/InCommon

 

TASKS:

  • Steve - Contact Shel to convey IlliniCloud interest in Net+ Aastra SIP service – copy George Loftus
  • George Laskaris - Produce a Pilot summary document that can be used as a template
  • Steve - Ask Keith Krueger (CoSN CEO) to join a future call

MEETING NOTES:

1)    *Brief* round robin updates from each of the pilots

a)    Andy / Kansas – Not participating in a pilot yet but there is interest. There is a community college that does outreach with classes at local high schools. There is also interest in Federated ID. They are keeping in touch with what is happening in the community

b)    MCNC – Community College in has been in touch with Steve Thorpe and they have exchanged information about getting their IIdP up and running. Will move on to other resources and service providers

c)     Merit – Working with their community college. They also have a program where their high school is taking classes so Identity Management would be of benefit

d)    lliniCloud/NCSA – Have participated in a number of calls. The CommIT presentation was very beneficial. The POP presentation was very educational from the operational perspective. They are preparing to sign a contract with Aegis Identity; They would like to better understand the relationship with InCommon group. There is an interest in utilizing two different providers – Canvas and Aastra SIP services. There is an immediate need to host SIP services for a call center and conferencing and are preparing an RFP. How do they prepare?

i)      This sounds like a new requirement for Net+. A call will need to be set up with Steve and Shel. Licensing and timing are in question. This would be for a October roll-out

ii)     Steve - Set up call with Shel

iii)    There is a follow-up call scheduled for later in the week. http://community.illinicloud.org. This is to host questions for community directors etc. to help solicit input and concerns. They would like to increase the scope and capture information.

e)    Nebraska – There are pressures in school starting up. They appreciated the POP and CommIT presentations. They have started a working group to look at the POP and working on ID Management. The department of education is developing a Data Dashboard system and is interested in being a part of the identity system for K-12. This will be a motivator. They are bringing Shibboleth training to the university system. There are nine identity providers. And they are looking at how to bring them together into a federation like InCommon, and how this would affect their future design. He is starting to prepare folks for membership

i)      What to expect from InCommon - in joining and at what point should they consider joining InCommon and what type of membership should state wide K-12 have – what would it look like.

(1)  Internet2 is exploring this in their business model discussions with MCNC. They are looking at how to have K-12 participate in InCommon. Right now they can join by being “sponsored in.” This is cumbersome and expensive. The primary issue is the participation fee structure. In looking at organizations that have existing relationships with K-12 it would help if there were a streamlined process for K-12, like buying a certificate from a commercial provider. This could be looked as a short term/long-term challenge. Short-term, is there a need to join? This may be for the next six months and perhaps InCommon can work something out temporarily to streamline K-12 participation.

(a)  Wasn’t the overall thrust of the Quilt InCommon pilot program effort to help define the parameters in what such a model looks like? It doesn’t seem that this is a clear message. From the onset of the project effort there were a number of different scenarios; federation to federation, school districts by themselves, trying to make a relationship with the federation, what the business model look like, what is the appropriate cost model for the organization. Participants in the pilots are exploring these potential opportunities. Should the right answer be that they don’t know what the cost model looks like and this is what we are trying to learn? So using sample providers, easier access to services (including Net+ and others) available to InCommon participants, there is interest in exploring mechanisms that could be tested in the pilot programs over the next year or two

(i)    There have been a number of different models discussed. The main goal is to explore the various models. The issue Ann was speaking to is using InCommon metadata in other ways, including looking at cross-border (state-to-state or regional-to-regional interfederation) policy issues etc. How can my state community access the metadata. It was discussed that there is a proposal of three different ways of participating in InCommon. (Cf. Ann's mail to list 1-August "InCommon/Regional Biz Model Development" and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGU2RfpyD2IbVrEFUnAI0JzOuAQWGtus0i3VOejJ034/edit?usp=sharing)

  1. K-12 districts or other similar entities joining InCommon directly.
  2. All pilots are working to define potential working models from their own perspective (federation to federation). InCommon membership is a question for the future once its cost model structure has been worked out. What are workable models from the perspective of the pilots? The goal now is to facilitate and gather the information and to help make assessment in a participatory manner where school districts can participate. 
  3. We are trying to establish a framework and a set of responsibilities for different models. It won’t happen in a back room. This has to start somewhere, with some of the regionals, it is a chicken and egg scenario. The learnings will be one of the key outcomes of the pilot.
  4. Part of the goal would to be to take one model and run with it – roles and responsibilities so there can be a full picture and bring this back as a straw-man to the broader community. There are pieces that will need to be worked out in any model.

f)      Adding SIP Services within the pilot context for IlliniCloud (and any others interested). This will go back to Shel to see if this could be brought in. There has been a struggle with Aastra in getting a public University through the legal contract. Tulane has signed the contract in February

i)      Copy George Loftus on the email to Shel.

2)    Artifacts to be keeping in mind in conjunction with the pilots. Will want to use in InCommon/Quilt member updates – There is a Quilt Member Meeting in early October

a)    Use cases

b)    Case studies

c)     Pilot overview with outcomes that we can share with others.

d)    InCommon would like to highlight this information is a newsletter. Time frame for the R&E community is sooner that Internet2 / InCommon. They would like to see it before Identity week and the EDUCAUSE meeting - late September.

i)      The intent is to have something that could be consolidated into a report. George would like to present at The Quilt Meeting. This is on the DRAFT agenda for the morning of Thursday, October 3rd.

(1)  George will produce a summary document that can be used as a template

ii)     Jack will would like to wait to distribute an email update regarding the pilots until after the Quilt meeting

iii)    It would be helpful for InCommon to give a report

3)    General query about any pilots that may have ties with public safety or public health

a)    This came up on a Pilot Definition Call from Shel Waggener. He is looking towards the future regarding linkages with all of these efforts and how they would tie into other potential statewide initiatives. How many K-12 organizations have potential ties with public safety or public heath organizations.

i)      In New Jersey the conversation was around Avian Flu and the distribution of public heath communications

ii)     In Illinois there are two efforts surrounding surveillance data in terms of disease, outbreak and epidemic from a heath care point of view. They collect attendance data and statistics for diagnosis codes for emergency rooms and quantity of patients. The data is correlated to get a view with animal services, weather and school attendance. This is being pushed by the CDC on a state by state basis. It would be helpful to get a more precise understanding of how this links to K-12

(1)  Shel was looking down the road if headway is made into Federated Identity into K-12, what other linkages could be made once the infrastructure was in place. How to make the case that public safety or public heath could have a better shot at coordinating communications.

(a)  There are examples of individual counties doing their own process.

4)    Other federation topics that pilots would like to learn more about (e.g. POP Webinar, etc.)

a)    Could there be guidance in “concern areas”

i)      It is beneficial to have Ann on the call to discern topics from questions asked during the call.

(1)  Best / Recommended Practices for operation InCommon

(2)  Discuss various levels for participating in InCommon and achieving the best RoI

(a)  Setting up infrastructure

(3)  Discuss challenging Architecture issues.

(a)  Put together a curriculum

(4)  Policy

(5)  Cross-pollination between K-12 joint task force (cosn.org/FederatedIdentity) - Keith Krueger (CoSN CEO) and his experience with challenges in this space

(6)  Identity with minors and outreach to minors' and parents / guardians, mentors, career workforce. How do you work this around a multi factor authentication because of the type of data shared?

(a)  Multi-factor authentication as a mechanism (better than shared password)

(b)  Relationships with guardians – authentication – proxy, or group of proxies.

(c)   Different organizations have different ways of handling this in a variety of different ways

(i)    Best practices, how did universities deal with this?

(d)  Tools that are being developed are meant to be utilized by identity providers and educational organizations, the value is also tied to parental access. There needs to be an extra level. Minors and student data are at of high value, and thus the stakes are high.

(i)    There have been a variety of things happening around the edges. If this would like to be discussed further, people can be brought in. This also fits into an InCommon project working on integrating a Social-to-SAML Gateway so that users can utilize their existing social identities for access to certain resources for which this would be appropriate.

(ii)   In offline conference with Nebraska this was discussed specifically around policy, business practice. This is assumed to be known / understood.

(iii)  There are parents that may not have access to technology. How will or can they be given access?

(iv) This is also meant to protect the organization since they are storing sensitive data for millions of kids

(v)  Google and Second Factor – is there away to leverage the fact that Google is doing this?

(vi) Is there a conferences or events within K-12 that the group should have people to go and attend?

  1. There are events at both the state and national level

(e)  Steve - Ask Keith Krueger to join a future call

(f)    Recorded Calls - the calls are being recorded

(i)    An MP3 is available upon request - the calls are confidential and will not be posted to the web

5)    Next call Thursday, August 29 at 4:00 PM EDT

END OF CALL

 

  • No labels