October 23, 2013


12 Noon Eastern, 9AM Pacific, 5PM UK

Dial-in Info:

+1-734-615-7474 (English I2, Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance),

+1-866-411-0013 (English I2, toll free US/Canada Only)

PIN: 0195376 #

  1. Introductions
  2.  Review Charter Items:
    1.  Establish international interfederation agreements with eduGAIN and UK federation.
    2. Review documented trust practices and policies for entity registration and publishing.
    3.  Review and adopt the US-EU Code of Conduct concerning attribute release and privacy.
    4.  Review and assist in the implementation of metadata management/publication/aggregation/tagging improvements.
    5.  Establish practices and policies for domestic interfederation for regional, K-12, etc federations.
  3.  Logistics: mailing list, wiki, teleconferences, etc
  4.  AOB

Warren Anderson, Steven Carmody, John Krienke, Tom Scavo, Ian Young, I.J Kim, Mark Scheible, Paul Caskey, Steve Olshansky, Scott Cantor


  1. Introduction
    1. General introductions 
  2.  Review Charter Items:
    1.  Establish international interfederation agreements with eduGAIN and UK federation
      • John Krienke reports that he and Ken Klingenstein have introduced EU/EEA CoC to I2 primary council. 
        • Staff person for I2 primary council has been assigned to give feedback
      • Ian Young and Steven Carmody have started technical work 
        • Uses shibboleth metadata aggregator to export UK federation metadata from a couple of universities on an opt-in basis.
        • Steven notes there is another use case at Brown University who want to share information with U of Newcastle upon Tyne.
        • Ian reports on plans to go public with plans for production interfederation between UK federation and eduGain in a couple of days, which may change the nature of how this goes forward.
      • Steven Carmody asks John Krienke how to position UK project with respect to possible InCommon-eduGain-UK Federation interfederation seeming to be in the future, especially given I2/InCommon issues with agreements.
        • John notes that since the eduGain process is not an agreement and negotiation but more like a POP, it doesn't seem like a road block.
        • Also, eduGain is lightweight, so seems technically possible.
        • Given these, though, might lead to trust issues - what can we expect from metadata?
        • UK project, being a bilateral agreement, adds value on what we can expect in a trust framework.
    2. Review documented trust practices and policies for entity registration and publishing.
      • John characterizes this as defining "what really matters"
      • Tom notes that, in relation to UK Federation agreement, there needs to be documented trust practices in place.
        • First two charter items are related in this way.
      • Ian notes that it is a prerequisite for eduGain that you have a trust practices document, although it's unspecified what they should contain. 
        • UK and InCommon have a higher standard and have put more thought into it. 
        • This is another way in which the UK-InCommon can provide insight to bring forward with eduGain
        • John agrees and notes that InCommon has internal policies that have not been raised to that level, asks if formalizing them sooner rather than later is useful.
        • Ian raises example of domain registration practices as something that is often not considered and just assumed to be handled properly. Can't be handled as informally as it is within a single federation.
        • Ian thinks that there should be some identifiable items that have to be in a practices statement.
        • Steven asks if there are any other federations that would join InCommon and UK in such a process
        • Ian thinks Austrians and Swedes would be good partners for this. Has had such a conversation with Austrians, Swedes are always open to such considerations.
        • Steven asks if anyone has thought about how to encode this in machine readable code.
        • Ian has thought about it but doesn't think there is a solution available at present.
        • Since federations are not first-class entities, there is currently no place for such entity attributes to live.
        • Steven thinks this might be needed going forward.
        • Ian thinks this is a distant prospect, but first step is formalizing the items.
        • John asks if mdrpi is multivalued, so that we can express all the registration practices it complies with
        • Ian answers not at present but it is a path forward.
  3.  End of time 
    • Warren asks if weekly time is good - Ian says he may have conflict every other week. We will go forward with this for now, revisit schedule if it seems necessary.
  • No labels