Friday July 29th, 11am-12:30pm ET
Jeff Egly - UETN
Rob Gorrell - UNC Greensboro
Kim Owen - NDSU
Jeremy Livingston - Stevens University
Brett Bieber - University of Nebraska
Sara Jeanes - Internet2
Mike Zawacki - Internet2
- Intellectual Property Reminder - All Internet2 activities are governed by the Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework
- Public Content Notice - eAC minutes are public documents. Please let the eAC and note taker know if you plan to discuss something of a sensitive nature.
- Agenda bash
- Bashed! No additions
- Approval of last month’s meeting minutes
- Brett approves
- Kim seconds
- SO update
- Network Nebraska (Brett)
- Presented at Admin Days (annual K12 superintendent meeting) on eduroam. Had eduroam available on site as well. Provided a 1 year retrospective, provided info on work being done this year.
- Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1k-Cs6nKc-t0F9Bv8d_mp37YSthWt3tdHzusx1GkVx74/edit
- Gets interesting around slide 10 :)
- Bret: Nearly all of the ESUs have deployed, covering 44% of the state’s K12 students. Got a testimonial from well known state k12 IT leader on benefits. 6 month report was a useful source for demonstrating value. Schools also gained access to $1.4mil in funding for wireless gear, some of which has gone into our eduroam deployments
- The Sun Corridor Network (Mike)
- Signed up additional school district (Florence)
- Working with an online K12 to become an SP. They have facilities nationally and internationally
- Looking at funding options to insulate community from cost of program
- Jeff: Having funding available to cover costs makes deployments and promotion of the service a lot easier.
- UETN (Jeff)
- Jeff: Working on promotion and documentation for SP-Onlys. Held user group last week with state K12 and HE IT staff.
- On-Rampers (Mike)
- Working on formalizing pilot schools
- Reworking support for public SP-only deployments (state program shifted areas of responsibility/funding)
- Link Oregon
- Have identified pilot schools (initially 2-3, option to add up to 5)
- Jeff: Are those schools or districts?
- Mike: Mostly districts, though possibly at least one school
- Working on firming up support structures, possible partnership with OSU
- Training update (Brett/Rob/Mike)
- Brett: Had new staff attend (in preparation for moving support to a more distributed model) and found it very valuable. Having access to I2 staff was especially helpful. Having the course materials available after training has been valuable as well.
- Jeff: Will you be transitioning to a new PM or with the work be spread across existing and new staff?
- Brett: Remains to be seen. We still have Ben Nelson (current PM) from Dept of Education for the time being, but may transition to staff from another department or HE partner going forward.
- Rob: From the instructor perspective it was successful
- Metrics for SOs (Mike/Brett)
- Brett: This was a question I had for the eAC - one thing I thought would be really helpful would be to collect a set of metrics from SOs that could be used to provide measurable tracking of progress, both internally and externally and to tell a better story. Here’s an example from our presentation. For example - can we pull data from eFM (how many IdPs, how many SP-Onlys, etc).
- Jeff: Agree. Could also be helpful to provide some basic info on committee activity for some cross silo awareness.
- Rob: As an impartial party I would find this helpful. Having a clearcut comparison could be helpful for external audiences as well.
- Kim: Would this be yearly collection?
- Brett: Looking at the 18 month stats from our presentation we could look at working the semi-annual and annual reports into that story. Maybe look at breakout of what kind of entities were added per year.
- Rob: Consider SPs and how they’re displayed.
- Brett: Wondering what we can pull out of the eFM without too much effort
- Jeff: Trendlines would be good to plot too
- Sara: The most useful info is probably on the SO reports. I have some “point in time” stats that I track but nothing for public consumption. Want to be mindful that we can disclose who’s progressing and how that we share appropriately.
- Brett: Agree with that. K12 stats that we share could be aggregated.
- Sara: Anecdotally the growth from SOs has accounted for about 90%. Have seen hundreds of new locations
- Brett: Is that something you’re tracking that coud be shared?
- Sara: I could have the team pull some numbers, but the best site for real time is monitor.eduroam.org (https://monitor.eduroam.org/ -> NOAM tab)
- Jeff: Next steps here?
- Brett: We could ask the SOs what they would find valuable. I’m imagining something like a line or stacked bar graph showing growth by sector.
- Jeff: It would help us (UETN) to see how we’re progressing year over year.
- Mike: The SO coordination calls would be a good place to surface this topic
- Standing check in on work priorities for the eAC in 2022 (Jeff/Brett)
- Engaging SPs to register service locations on map, other “baseline” work
- Jeff: On the map side, does that fall with Internet2?
- Sara: I would be happy to include a blurb in my regular notes to admins to ensure all locations get added to the map. We have a knowledge base article on how to do that, could link to that.
- Rob: There was some discussion on the eduroam-admin list about what to do if they find a location that isn’t reflected accurately on the map. Maybe something we can mention in the wiki
- Sara: Good question. Easiest process would be to reach out to the local support and have the map updated. In some cases we’ve seen schools shuffle locations or spin off remote campuses, which is what prompted it to come up on the eduroam-admin list.
- Rob; Wonder if an SO would want to be the point of contact for their constituents
- Jeff: From UETN’s perspective we want to know that if we have something on the map that it’s operating properly, and pull down sites that are down or permanently
- Rob: What’s the process for determining who owns an SP?
- Sara: It’s available on the map - points toward the home institution’s webpage.
- Brett: Wondering if we should work with the eduroam companion app? Could the app compare the location of the device and the location of the SP they’re connecting to?
- Mike: Device GPS can be a little unreliable, but could always ask.
- Brett: Wonder if we could get a report have some metrics of engagement after one of the messages?
- Sara: You can reference the monitor.eduroam.org page. So right now we (the US) are at 2855. If that number goes up after the note it could be a measurement of engagement
- Brett: Would be interesting to see what happens with, say, Allo’s public deployments, esp. If they do enable the service at the residential level. Would want a business SP to broadcast their location, not so sure about residential users. Could make that part of the onboarding process with commercial SP providers. Worth thinking about developing a set up best practices.
- Jeff: Want to see if there are any other areas that we should be focusing on. Is OpenRoaming a priority for example? Other topics?
- Rob: I think we should keep current on OpenRoaming but am not aware of any work to be done in the US right now.
- Rob: One area I’m interested in is the student use of K12, especially WRT content filtering concerns. That comes up in my work.
- Jeff: Seems like there’s a spectrum of approaches, from BYOD to locked down district issued devices. Looks like Nebraska has really good student usage, better than Utah.
- Brett: We’ve had some discussion with our ERate coordinator. His determination was that eduroam and filtering didn’t cause any issues with ERate requirements. If it’s district issued equipment it’s better to filter at the device level. If it’s a district owned network you should filter that network.
- Jeff: We’ve had some districts deploy to students but tend not to find out when they flip that switch.
- Rob: Consider the implications of this on our work on things like the User/Device Onboarding WG. Want to be able to account for BYOD and district owned devices
- User/Device WG and service requirements next steps (Sara/Mike/Brett/Rob)
- Sara: Mostly this is me pacing the document internally. It’s in good shape and will be presented to this group in September or October (probably September). Have been working with Rob on some language including considering potential for MDM, how that might impact the work. We’ll be doing internal review between now and next eAC meeting. We will be pivoting next to solutioning, looking at work packages
- Rob: Agree we’re in a good spot. What we’ve been doing is taking the original requirements doc and expanding on that. Have worked to refine the use cases, populations that would use the service, and how each could be dealt with.
- Brett: I’ll miss working with the working group :) But am excited to see the requirements doc nearing completion. Looking forward to seeing how to take that work and turn it into next steps
- Sara: Just want to be sure that it makes sense to pursue this service and then turn toward guest access. Does that sound right?
- Rob: Subscribers that are just getting started might be more interested in User/Device onboarding. More mature subscribers might be more interested in a guest service.
- Brett: If most of the subscribers are coming from the SO sector then I think Onboarding is more important
- Sara: Good feedback. Want to make sure that we’re using our staff resources in a way that aligns with needs of community.
- Heads up/link to Passkey presentation (Mike/Sara)
- Sara: Has some interesting implications which could be relevant. Mostly consumer focused, esp users of Apple and Google credentials.
- Sara’s last eAC meeting until Dec
- Brett to move to new position (AVP of Client Services) at University of Nebraska
- Will continue to serve on this committee
- Next meeting
- Friday September 2nd, 11am-12:30pm ET