Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

InCommon TAC Meeting 2015-02-05

Thursday, February 5, 2015
1:00pm ET | 12:00pm CT | 11:00am MT | 10:00am PT

Minutes

Attending: Steve Carmody, Michael Gettes, David Walker, Ian Young, Scott Cantor, Mike LaHaye, Keith Hazelton, Jim Basney

With: Ann West, Tom Scavo, Dean Woodbeck, Ken Klingenstein, Nate Klingenstein

Action Items

(AI) Tom Scavo will bring a discussion of two MD-RPI elements to the next meeting: RegistrationInfo and PublicationInfo.

(AI) TAC review the draft charter for the Metadata Distribution Working Group and send comments to the email list by the end of the day Monday, Feb. 9 (see https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/MD-Distro+WG+Charter+II <https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/MD-Distro+WG+Chart>)

(AI) Steve Carmody will send email looking for a chair for the MD Distribution WG

Ops Update

  • We have introduced the MD-RPI elements in the preview metadata aggregate and will add them to the other production aggregates over the next two weeks.
  • (AI) Tom Scavo will bring a discussion of two elements to the next meeting: RegistrationInfo and PublicationInfo.

Attribute Release Recommendations to Steering

At its January 2015 meeting, Steering asked for background material and a resolution to encourage IdPs to expand their default attribute release policies. The document has been developed but was not discussed during the February Steering call (it is scheduled for March). The proposal is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KgPV-P2GVHcdlbzxYldRTFowenWapFeiK27zmqp0cIc/edit#heading=h.s6ubnnrfa9ct

TIER Workshop #2

Ann West reported on the second TIER workshop held last week at the University of Florida. Thirteen campuses attended (CIOs and architects from each campus) and heard the TIER vision, completed an assessment tool for trust/identity maturity on their campus, and presented use cases. This group was particularly interested in support for adoption and integration with campus business processes and to meet stakeholder needs.

GEANT Trust and Identity Committee (TIC) Meeting

A group from the U.S. met with the GEANT TIC this week (Ann West, Steve Zoppi, Shel Waggener, Tracy Futhey, and Tom Barton) to discuss work being planned in the EU and how it might relate to TIER.

Ann reported that GEANT has a large amount of funding over the next seven years for trust and identity projects for EU NRENs. Discussions included streamlining access for SPs and centralization of services. Ann will share slides and action items from the meeting.

Metadata Distribution WG Proposed Charter

https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/MD-Distro+WG+Charter+II

Tom Scavo discussed the proposed charter and spinning up this group.

(AI) TAC review the draft and send comments to the email list by the end of the day Monday, Feb. 9.

(AI) Steve will send email looking for a chair for this working group.

Scott suggested contacting a commercial service provider to participate in this working group.

TAC Re-Charter Effort

https://docs.google.com/a/brown.edu/document/d/1U1syTlrfKhINc-4RowBh6Sh08nkRfvfuYyJtcw_0jnM/edit

There was a continuation of last meeting’s discussion concerning the role and organization of TAC. Options discussed (and these are not mutually exclusive) included:

  1. Create a standing Operations Working Group, an Interfederation WG, and a standing Technical Goals/Priorities WG. The latter would listen to the community, develop a plan and spin-off working groups as needed.
  2. Develop a way to inform and support the InCommon federation about the needs of an increasingly diverse (in terms of experience and expertise) community. Also, to advise staff on campus contraints and needs and help staff to understand the campus impact of proposed changes. Also, to make recommendations on reducing impacts when rolling out something new.
  3. In conjunction with creating a TAC Operations WG, encourage steering to creation an operations subcommittee that could act with the authority of Steering and provide quicker turn-around for decisions

Two broad categories seem to have emerged: 1) address technical challenges and advise federation operations, and 2) determining how to help campuses implement federation in the appropriate way – operational outreach at the campus level.

There is also a concern that working groups do the work and issue reports and recommendations, but there is no process to ensure follow-up and implementation.

There is a need for TAC to spend time on some acute priorities for InCommon. For example:

  • develop baseline practices that participants can measure against, as well as a testing mechanism
  • eduGAIN roll-out

Next Meeting

Thurs., February 19, 1 pm ET / Noon CT / 11 am MT / 10 am PT

 

  • No labels