Thursday, August 17, 2017
Action Items from Past Meetings
(AI) TAC should review the IdP strategy document (https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/x/FgrkAg)
(AI) TAC should review the information for IdPs on the wiki and consider useful additions and revisions.
Minutes
TAC Members Attending: Janemarie Duh, Mark Scheible, Jim Jokl, Eric Goodman, Keith Wessel, Albert Wu, Tom Mitchell, Mike Grady
Others Attending: Ian Young, David Walker, IJ Kim, Dean Woodbeck, Kevin Morooney, Steve Olshansky, Nick Roy, Dave Shafer, Mike LaHaye, Paul Caskey, Steve Zoppi, Ann West
Ops Update (Nick)
- Released a Federation Manager upgrade in the last two weeks. The next version will be released in about three weeks. Also working on a dashboard for site admins. You can see the Federation Manager roadmap on the wiki.
- There was a security incident on August 2. You’ve seen the security notice; Nick is working on a full incident report.
Trust and Identity Update (Ann)
- Trust and Identity is rolling out contracts and invoices for the eduroam service. We have not had a contract in the past, nor required payment, so this is taking significant time. Internet2 higher ed members receive an eduroam subscription as part of their membership; others pay based on IPEDS data.
- Steward Program update - We did a Proof of Concept report to the regionals in June via a webinar; we will publish a blog post for community to consume.
- We will be pursuing MDQ and Baseline Expectations soon.
- Steve Zoppi mentioned that, similar to the deep dives from last year, we will be looking at needs, gaps, and a view of capacity. TAC will be provided an opportunity to review this report.
- We have started to report on InCommon projects to Steering on a monthly basis - this will be included in the pre-read material for future TAC meetings.
TAC 2018 Nominations (Janemarie)
- There is a wiki landing page for 2018 TAC nominations, which includes the schedule, members with expiring terms, and a table that will contain the nominees.
- The nomination communications should be finalized by September 1, and a communication to current TAC members with expiring terms is scheduled for September 2. There is no draft of the latter message at this point.
- Nominations will be sent via email to nominations@incommon.org
Updates on Working Groups
Ann has asked Emily Eisbruch to help with working group spin-ups
OIDC WG - Steven sent another email and picked up a few more folks for the mailing list. He will send a poll to determine a meeting time.
SP Onboarding - Janemarie is following up on potential co-chairs.
Attributes for Federation - Mark reported that there is some confusion as to who will populate some of the designated roles on this working group. Ann has contact AACRAO; she and Mark will discuss the other needs.
GEANT Roadmap
There had been discussions about having someone from GEANT join a TAC call to provide an update on their IdM roadmap. Instead, it is suggested that members attend the GEANT session at TechEx (https://meetings.internet2.edu/2017-technology-exchange/detail/10004779).
WG Chairs and Flywheels Responsibilities
This document will soon be finalized. A reminder that this document is intended to standardize roles of chairs and flywheels across all working groups. Please review. Will publish this soon.
Multi-tier Federation Discussion
There have been discussions in the Deployment Profile WG and on the REFEDS email list suggesting that a multi-tiered federation may be a solution to some of the ongoing problems (such as attribute release and SIRTFI adoption). There is concern that this approach could reduce the value of the federation overall. One alternative is to make more extensive use of tags, and allowing relying parties to make decisions based on those tags.
One motivation for the request for a multi-tier concept is frustration among some research SPs that changes in the federation do not move fast enough; that changes in policy and process need to be more agile. R&S is an example. It is a roadblock to the research SPs when some schools release R&S while others don’t, even though this is generally considered directory information. Blocking the R&S release could result from a registrar not being part of the discussion, or not understanding the need. Communication and outreach may help. Another issue is that researchers needing R&S attributes released typically form a very small number of campus users, so the need never moves up the priority chain. A consent solution may help move this along. SIRTFI is another example of something that seems like it should be simple and straightforward.
The TAC will wait to hear any recommendation from the working group.