Friday September 1, 11am-12:30pm ET


Sara Hasnain - UF

Brett Bieber - Nebraska

Kendra Ard - CSU

Josh Howlett - Independent

Mike Dickson - UMass Amherst

Amel Caldwell – University of Washington

Chris Phillips - CANARIE, CACTI member

Jeff Egly - UETN

Rob Gorrell - UNCG


Ann West

Sara Jeanes

Romy Bolton

Albert Wu


Tom Rixom

  • 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.
  • InCommon Futures Discovery project (Kevin Morooney/SecondMuse)
    • With special guests from the advisory community
  • Agenda bash
    • Bashed!
  • Approval of last meeting’s minutes
  • Report out from CACTI’s discussion on RADIUS/UDP issue (Rob) 
    • Rob: I delivered the eAC response to CACTI at their last meeting. As reminder we suggested a two pronged approach
      • Work on Best Practices Guide update (already underway) 
      • Develop a metric that could be included in something like the eduroam reports that shows eduroam subscribers how well they’re complying with current best practices, identify gaps
        • Would work with Sara and eduroam team on that. 
      • MikeD: Saw email around use of Radsec internationally - what’s adoption like there?
      • Sara: Some adoption, especially in the EU. They have a roaming consortium 
      • Josh: There is a GEANT policy that’s binding on the NRENs but Radsec isn’t a requirement. Adoption in EU is almost exclusively between NRENs and very little at the institutional level. Most of those institutions are in Germany. 
  • Feedback on draft RADIUS attribute usage guide
    • Sara: This would be treated as a Knowledge Base article. So we’re looking for eAC feedback but won’t be presenting to community for input. 
    • MikeD: Is there a deadline to have feedback in? 
    • Sara: We’d ask for feedback no later than 9/30
    • Rob: Would be interested in talking about whether we should consider stripping some of these attributes. Topic for Best Practices Guide, especially WRT privacy preservation?
    • MikeD: Agree - we can always initially err on the side of stripping more attributes and dial that back. Easier to give attributes than take them away. 
    • MikeD: Would attribute stripping happen at top level RADIUS? Or at individual RADIUS? 
    • Rob: Merits discussion. It’s one consideration as we look at this document. 
    • Josh: The document does touch on this - there isn’t anything in the set of attributes is the minimum needed to make the service work. Don’t know that any of the attributes included as minimums has privacy implications but am open to thoughts from other. Consider loss of transparency if we strip attributes at the TLRS level. 
    • Rob: Think about responsibility that could add for individual institutions. 
    • MikeD: Josh mentioned compliance scores - seems like a good way to present compliance metrics. 
    • Rob: From a transparency perspective we’ve had the BPG out for a while now. CACTI asserts that eduroam community may not be following those practices, hence suggesting the metric as a way to move subscribers toward compliance. And would give us some data on compliance levels before we start making decisions, formulating policy, planning action. 
    • AI FOR COMMITTEE: Finish adding feedback to Josh’s document by 9/30. 
    • Chris: WRT eduroam baseline and scorecard I’m happy to share perspective on work to date at the federation levels and with our work in CANARIE
  • Next Meeting: September 29th, 11:00am - 12:30pm ET
  • AOB?
    • Add “Cloud based multi tenant questions (Amel)” to next month’s agenda.
  • No labels