Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:19:12 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1957154714.6776.1711649952533@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_6775_1732957674.1711649952533"
------=_Part_6775_1732957674.1711649952533
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Minutes
TAC Members Attending: Mark Scheible, Jim Jokl, Albert =
Wu, Janemarie Duh, Kim Milford, Mike Grady, Tom Barton, Chris Misra, Keith =
Wessel, Eric Goodma
Others Attending: Dean Woodbeck, David Walker, Ian Youn=
g, Nick Roy, Tom Scavo, Paul Caskey, Mike LaHaye
TAC approved the minutes from the last meeting (January=
19, 2017)
Ops Update=
https://spaces.at.i=
nternet2.edu/x/6QN-Bg
- Shib IdPv3 Upgrades - 57% of InCommon Shib IdPs are at v3, 36% v2, and =
7% unknown=E2=80=A8
- R&S - No new InCommon IdPs added in January; 60 IdPs from Denmark d=
eclared support (all IdPs in Denmark declared at the same time - they have =
a hub/spoke setup).=E2=80=A8
- Domains in IdP metadata - A sponsored partner (with a .org domain=
) submitted IdP metadata with a .com domain in the endpoint location. This =
is not usual. Tom has drafted a policy and procedure document =E2=80=9CDoma=
ins in IdP Metadata=E2=80=9D and asks that TAC read it and give feedback. O=
ps Advisory Group has discussed briefly. =E2=80=A8
OIDC Survey Results=
The survey was open Dec. 22, 2016, and closed January 20, 2017, and rece=
ived 143 responses. The survey listed a number of use cases, but there was =
an open-ended question, too, where a number of other uses cases were includ=
ed. Albert shared a summary and highlights (see t=
his document for additional information):
- 65% are very interested in OIDC/OAuth in API development=E2=80=A8
- Nearly 90% want OIDC/OAuth built into Shib and TIER offerings=E2=80=A8<=
/li>
- Two-thirds say OIDC/OAUth should support current federation model=E2=80=
=A8
- There is not a clear leader in terms of product (Google is largest at 1=
3%)=E2=80=A8
NIST 800-63-3
There is an open comment period underway.
Global Summit Sc=
hedule
TAC F2F is scheduled Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 3-5 pm.
=
FOPP Change and Incident Handling Process
Internet2 legal has approved this and Nick will post a blog on Tuesday, =
Feb. 7.
Addressing Openness and Transparency in TAC
Mark has summa=
rized the topics.
Two threads
- OpennessTransparency=E2=80=A8
- TAC information currently hard to find and scattered=E2=80=A8
- Plan to better organize the public information on the wik=E2=80=A8i
- REFEDS site provides a nice example=E2=80=A8
- The need for openness probably extends beyond TAC (InC overall, Steerin=
g, etc)=E2=80=A8
- 2017 Work Plan=E2=80=A8
- Hold webinars on work plan=E2=80=A8
- Provide method for input on work plan=E2=80=A8
- What=E2=80=99s the decision-making process?=E2=80=A8
- Publish work underway - WGs, web/wiki=E2=80=A8
A number of things need to be kept in front of the community=E2=80=A8
- R&S, IdPv3, consent, attribute release, entity categories=E2=80=A8<=
/li>
- Identified obstacles to effective federation=E2=80=A8
- Identified attribute bundle, SP needs/use=E2=80=A8
Have we identified the gaps (in terms of openness)?
- Making the online content more accessible (at least have a one-stop-sho=
p for information and links to other information)=E2=80=A8
- Need to determine the next step for the topics on the 2017 work plan (W=
G? Joint effort with REFEDS? What is appropriate?). =E2=80=A8
It seems that there is a need to respond to the question of transparency=
even before the work plan is open for discussion. Would it be appropriate =
to use this document as a starting point for communication?
- One idea for a next step - draft a note to participants once a process =
is worked out, with a way to provide feedback=E2=80=A8
- Is opening up the TAC calls a solution?=E2=80=A8
- The concern is likely broader than TAC -- TAC=E2=80=99s work plan, how =
does that work plan fit with the larger Internet2 Trust and Identity effort=
s, other groups that may also require visibility.=E2=80=A8
- People may not know the mechanisms in place for feedback and participat=
ion. Reminding people periodically about the structure and opportunity for =
participation may help.=E2=80=A8
- It would also be useful to get feedback about what people want in terms=
of openness and participation.=E2=80=A8
- There are consequences for being open and transparent. Could lead to mo=
re questions about perceived inactivity and/or follow-up or follow-through =
on things like WG proposals.=E2=80=A8
- Perhaps need to be clearer about the role of TAC and related groups.=E2=
=80=A8
- What we do for TAC and CACTI and other groups should be done in a simil=
ar way. CACTI is having a similar discussion. Also should make sure to publ=
ish the process for developing and accepting the TAC work plan.=E2=80=A8
Work Plan
(AI) Mark - will put the four items listed in his summary as a start of =
a work plan. Put this in a collaboration tool and TAC have at it. Also, wha=
t are the scopes of these projects.
Next Meeting - Thursday, F=
ebruary 16 - 1 pm ET
------=_Part_6775_1732957674.1711649952533--