Edu-Person Working Group Charter 1. Introduction Lack of agreement between institutions of higher education on information in LDAP- accessible directories makes it difficult to deploy multi-institutional networked services and resources. The edu-Person working group, with Educause and Internet 2 sponsorship, has the mission of defining an LDAP object class that includes widely used person attributes in higher education. The group will draw on the work of educational standards bodies in selecting definitions of these directory attributes. The following charter defines the edu- Person working group’s scope and its basic processes. 2. Deliverables 2.1. The working group will produce a document entitled “Proposed definition of an edu- Person object class, version 0.9.” 2.2. The working group will produce explanatory documentation for the edu-Person object class. 2.3. The working group will recommend a process for promoting the edu-Person object class via schema registration bodies and/or appropriate IETF channels. 2.4. The working group will propose a process for maintaining and updating the edu-Person object class definition. 3. Process 3.1. The LDAP inetOrgPerson object class will be the starting point for common person attributes. 3.2. Attributes to supplement inetOrgPerson will be proposed and discussed by the working group. 3.3. The working group will abide by existing applicable standards, such as those of the Post- secondary Electronic Standards Council (PESC), for the definition, syntax and semantics of higher education attributes. 3.4. Nominated attributes will only be included in the proposed edu-Person object class by consensus of the working group members. 3.5. The final draft will be publicly disseminated for wide availability. 4. Timeline The edu-Person proposal and other deliverables will be completed no later than March 31, 2000. 5. Guiding Principles 5.1. Existing inetOrgPerson attributes will be recommended for use if their standard definition meets the needs of educational institutions. 5.2. Attributes from the inetOrgPerson object class will NOT be reused in any way that violates the standard definitions of those attributes. 5.3. The working group should identify those additional attributes that are of general or wide utility in higher education. 5.4. The working group should propose attributes needed to support the following specific use cases: 5.4.1.Role-based access to services and resources. 5.4.2.Anonymous access to licensed resources as in the Digital Library Foundation pilot with UCOP, Columbia University, JSTOR and OCLC. 5.4.3.Proposed PKI-enabled functions of the NACHA student financial aid clearinghouse. Edu-Person Working Group Charter 5.4.4.X.509 certificate standard and extension field attributes for use within the educational environment and with government agencies that interact with educational institutions 5.5. For each proposed attribute, the working group will: 5.5.1.Assign a name. 5.5.2.Assign an Object Identifier (OID). 5.5.3.Specify the syntax. 5.5.4.Spell out the semantics. The definition must state clearly what the values of the attribute mean. 5.5.5.If the attribute values are from a controlled vocabulary, the full vocabulary will be specified. 5.5.6.Provide advice on attribute usage and management for both existing and proposed new attributes. 5.5.7.Provide guidance on which attributes might be qualified for use in which application contexts. 5.5.8.Provide advice on group and certificate-based access control. 5.5.9.Provide advice on the directory server operational aspects such as indexing and update procedures. 6. Membership 6.1. The working group members include the Net@Edu-sponsored November, 1999, Fed-Ed PKI participants, Clair Goldsmith, Bill Weems, Bill Frazier, Ken Klingenstein, David Wasley, Keith Hazelton,… plus the Internet 2 Middleware Architecture Council for Education (MACE) Directory Working Group members, Michael Gettes, Mark Poepping, Bob Morgan, Steve Carmody, Paul Hill, Tom Dopirak, Tom Jordan….. 6.2. The members may, by consensus, invite other individuals to join the working group.