Notes: Conference call 12-18-09

Vendor subgroup minutes

Attendees:

Kent Percival, U Guelph
Andy Ingham, UNC
Foster Zhang, JHU
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2
Dave Kennedy, Duke
Ann West, Internet2

AGENDA

  • Survey results
    • follow up with respondents
    • send invitation letters in January
  • Best practices
    • remove draft status
    • refer to from InCommon join page
    • multi-campus IdP, OCLC multiple authos, and other non common lib terms
  • Shibboleth EZproxy how to

Action Items

[Kennedy] Follow up thanking survey respondents

[Woodbeck] Best practices - remove draft status and clean up comments

[Woodbeck, Kennedy] promote best practices in different venues - InCommon join page, InCommon web site, collaboration wiki

[Kennedy] follow up with Mark Montague

[All] review Shibboleth EZproxy how to

Notes

Survey results:
Follow up with respondents.  Thank them for participation.  Let them know there is more to come, and what we anticipate.  Also start dialog so that we can provide assistance with their shib/ezproxy implementations, if they desire.  Plug upcoming webinar.

Decided that we will not initially ask CIO or UL to send letter, because they are not involved in this sort of operational mode.  We will make a first attempt, sending from us, noting all of the other schools that "undersign" the email.  If this does not get response with vendors, we will reassess.

Things that stood out from the survey.  Question 1 - a lot of people indicated that, for the resource providers that are already members of I2, they would like to federate.  We probably should seek information on why they haven't already.
Also question 1 - we were struck by the number that indicated they are federating.  We should somehow promote the fact that there are so many.

Best Practices:
Document has now been vetted.  Time to remove the draft status.  Also promote in a couple of more places, such as collaboration wiki, InCommon web site, and InCommon join page.

Discussion about U Michigan and Mark Montague's email.  No clear cut best practice to promote.  Maybe we can provide a forum for discussing.  Maybe this should fall into use case subgroup; it is really the vendors though that are going to need guidance for a common solution.  We have some dialog already with some key vendors.  Let's try to bring them together on the issue and at least agree on a common way to solve for U Michigan.  Contact key vendors, invite to discuss, ask that they provide technical resources to help us.  Vendors have long change management timeline, should coordinate on a way forward.  We shouldn't have the expectation that what is chosen is final, and may change over time, but doing so in a common way has a lot of promise.  Invite Mark into call to discuss.

  • No labels