Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <550261715.6712.1711647125460@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_6711_1132629825.1711647125458"
------=_Part_6711_1132629825.1711647125458
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
CTAB Call We=
d. July 18, 2018
Attending
- Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska (=
chair)
- Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (vic=
e chair)
- David Bantz, University of Alaska =
;
- Tom Barton, University Chicago and Int=
ernet2
- Chris Hable, University of Michigan&nb=
sp;
- Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madiso=
n
- Ann West, Internet2
- Emily Eisbruch, Internet2 =
Regrets: <=
/p>
- Ted Hanss, University of Michigan
- Joanna Rojas, Duke
- Chris Whalen, National Institute of Health regrets
Action Item
- [A] Ann bring idea of stickers for BE =
improvement to TechEx planning committee Perhaps also R&S and SIRTFI
DISCUSSION
Baseline Expectations Tabletop Exercise<=
/span>
- Tuesday, July 10, 2018
- Baseline Expectations TableTop Exercis=
e 1 on community consensus process
- Focused on a hypothetical question fro=
m a community member on =E2=80=9Cgenerally accepted security practices=E2=
=80=9D
- Questions about SIRTFI were raised&nbs=
p;
- SIRTFI has low bar checklist of practi=
ces for IDP or SP
- Does CTAB think the SIRTFI checklist i=
s sufficient?
- Should we require an entity to have th=
e SIRTFI tag, (in a future version of BE)
- Good to have several members of InComm=
on staff present along with several CTAB members
- Engagement was successful
=
li>
- Some discussion of CTAB=E2=80=99s appr=
oach to its own work
- Have an arc of consensus work for CTAB=
- Who decides when there is the end of a=
certain stage of the consensus?
- Should the end of a stage go to CTAB?<=
br>
- For decisions emerging from consensus,=
it was decided that there should likely be an Impact statemen=
t to InCommon operations and to the community
- If a change coming out of consensus wi=
ll require substantial work from the community, there should be an expected=
cadence.
- For some issues that come up for conse=
nsus, should we schedule them for later?
- We could produce a series of events th=
at could drive an arc of work to refine what baseline means
- Clarifications of v1 of baseline expec=
tations, work towards v2 of baseline expectations
- There will be work by InCommon staff o=
n the COmanage steps involved in the consensus process
- Monday July 23, 2018 at 10am ET
- Baseline Expectations TableTop Exercis=
e 2 on dispute resolution
- Hope for additional feedback
Close of consultation for Community Cons=
ensus Process Doc was July 17, 2018
- [AI] Brett will update the Consensus P=
rocess Doc rules of the road for issue around discussion list being publicl=
y archived (item 5) DONE https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ao-ZO=
9hfWMuSh0KHMegZV3S8ETS1jM1hIk8hmy_UjFI/edit
- Next steps?
- When the doc is updated, and&nbs=
p; CTAB accepts this doc, it goes into the Doc Stewardship repository Emily=
and Brett will coordinate on this, including on an email from Brett to the=
community about the final version.
Progress from the field on meeti=
ng BE compliance
- CTAB will decide in coming weeks on ti=
metable to tell InCommon Ops to require compliance in the federation manage=
r
Progress is being made on IDP and SP compliance with BE, compliance percent=
ages are climbing
- DavidW and ReneeS are making good prog=
ress in their outreach around BE. They are using the prioritized list, as s=
uggested by CTAB. Low response rate to their emails. =
; But some orgs may see the email outreach and work to comply without respo=
nding to the email. However they have learned things from those they=E2=80=
=99ve talked with. Seems policy issues (around logo for example) are =
not a huge impediment
- Next step may be a note to CIOs of org=
anizations that are not meeting baseline expectations.
- Notes to management seem to have more =
impact than notes to site admins.
- Having a date helps=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9C=
can you meet baseline by end of July?=E2=80=9D often gets action
=
- Low response from sponsored partners s=
o far.
- Reaching out to the IDPs that have spo=
nsored corporate partners may be a good approach
- Next steps: DavidW and ReneeS will mak=
e a few more calls. Then will create a written summary of their efforts.
- Oct. is cyber security month and also =
TechEx. Suggestion to give stickers for those who have improved.
<=
/span>
- [A] (Ann) bring idea of stickers for B=
E improvement to TechEx planning committee
CTAB at TechEx 2018
Final report of the Attributes for Colla=
boration and Federation WG (Brett)
- Report is linked from box at top of th=
is wiki page:
- There is a recommendation impacting Ba=
seline Expectations, a requirement for attribute release , likely for=
BE version 2
Recommendatio=
ns 4.1 Make R&S support a =
requirement in Baseline Expectations InCommon strongly recommends R&S attribute release by its IdP P=
articipants (cf. =
https://www.incommon.org/federation/attributes.html ), although how broadly this is understood is not known. The WG recommends tha=
t a requirement to do so be added to a future version of the Baseline Expec=
tations for Trust in Federation. Additionally, the TIER Shibboleth IdP dist=
ribution should have R&S &=
nbsp; |
Next CTAB call - Wed. Aug 1, 2018=
------=_Part_6711_1132629825.1711647125458--