Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1747771680.1046.1710824984238@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_1045_485143242.1710824984237"
------=_Part_1045_485143242.1710824984237
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Minutes
Attending: Mike Grady, Keith Wessel, Janemarie Duh=
, Matthew Brookover, Jessica Coltrin, Eric Goodman, Eric Kool-Brown, Mike G=
rady, Matthew Economou, Judith Bush
With: Shannon Roddy, James Babb, Dave Shafer, Alb=
ert Wu, David Walker, Steve Zoppi, Ann West, IJ Kim, David Bantz
Action Items
(AI) TAC to provide feedback to NISO on the RA-21 Recommendations.=
(AI) Eric G., Janemarie, Albert, Jessica, Matt B. to jump start a =
badging program for the TAC to review and consider.
Intellec=
tual Property Reminder
All Internet2 activities are governed by the Internet2 Intellectual Prop=
erty Framework.
Public Content No=
tice
TAC minutes are public documents. Please let the TAC and note taker know=
if you plan to discuss something of a sensitive nature.
=
Trust & Identity + InCommon Ops Update
- Baseline Expectations - Five organizations have enti=
ties that are slated to be removed on May 15. Eleven IdPs are =
still at risk. We'e still hearing from organizations post the =
metadata removal notice that Ann sent out to each affected organization.
- Internet2's JIRA will be moving behind the Collaboration Platform=
this weekend. After the migration is completed, you'll be able to use fede=
rated access.
Internatio=
nal Updates
Heather emailed an update to the list that outlined the NISO relea=
sed the public comment period on the RA-21 Recommendations. (AI) TAC to=
provide feedback to NISO on the RA-21 Recommendations.
TA=
C/CTAB/CACTI Collaboration Updates
CACTI - CACTI is working on prioritizing their FI=
M4R recommendations. They are also working developing an eduroam advisory g=
roup charter.
CTAB - Logistics discussions with David Bantz on =
who does what update. Other recent CTAB activity was covered in the earlier=
"Baseline Expectations" item (1.a). Please keep updates to a =
few minutes only to leave time for main agenda items.
Working Gro=
up Updates
Federation 2.0 - The data gathering to build scen=
arios is beginning. We have a survey and plan a number of focus group discu=
ssions via https://internet2.zoom.us/j=
/8853848902 at the times at this calendar. Some additional times may be =
offered in the second half of May. Check the Working Group page for more de=
tails. We are encouraging people to share the invitation with people who have insight into the future =
of the education and research landscape - the whole landscape, not just the=
federation infrastructure. This is data gathering for the scenario plannin=
g, so we're hoping to uncover possibilities such as more private enterprise=
-academic collaboration, fluid collaboration groups dominating identity as =
opposed to traditional academic institutions, etc.
IdPaas - Co-chair=
selection/review : =
IDP as a Service WG Interest (possible Co-chair) list. First call is April 29th. Would like to find a co-chair that is unlike =
Duke but likely a customer of this service. Five names look like likely can=
didates. Mary will contact Eugene Monti (from Duquesne University) first.=
span>
Badging t=
o encourage best behavior in federation
Summary of conversation a=
round encouraging best behavior in federation. Goal is to =
provide guidance on what InCommon should do in this area. The focus of Jack=
Suess's email thread (included in the doc above) was focused on service pr=
oviders. Some SPs say they support SAML, but don't register metadata. We ne=
ed to provide clarity on the practices they support.
- Should we do this as a federation?
- Is the badging to make visible that which is not currently define=
d or just to make what is being done more findable? Both.
- There is strong need for shining a light on how an org is support=
ing federation integration standards. Where would these badges exist? On th=
e InCommon website.
- We should start something like this.
- If so, what should we do?
- One of the criteria considered in the deployment profile was whet=
her or not a requirement could be tested.
- Automated testing or self-assessed?
- Duke has a Shibboleth-ready assessment for vendors that is used a=
s expectation setting for local users/stakeholders. It shows them how well =
the vendor is following best practices.
- The form does NOT distill the deficiencies that could be shared w=
ith SP leadership. Badging associated with the Deployment Profile could hel=
p with this.
- Portland State has InC integration as part of the procurement pro=
cess, but just because it's on the list doesn't mean it's turnkey ready.
- Background from Ann:
- Affiliates program - was moved into Internet2 program. There was=
an interest in knowing if they were doing the right thing. Offering servic=
es that were InCommon-approved. The Participants list doesn't reflect metad=
ata yet. T&I went to the TAC then to say they wanted a testing program =
and badging. It was difficult to start with the testing program.
- Because of the website redo, there will be a list of metadata re=
gistration, a data list. This is a first step.
- The proposal is to make it easy to find all the programs and pol=
icies. This is the first thing.
- We have to come to a consensus of the two profiles we have (impl=
ementation and deployment). Cart and horse problem. First step, make it eas=
y for procurement officers to go the InCommon website to find out if a prov=
ider has metadata registered.
- A vendor can attest and the community weighs in with plus-one, et=
c.
- What do we do with the deployment and implementation profiles? Do we re=
quire them? Do organizations have to support the complete set or do we brea=
k apart the requirements and introduce them as requirements over time. We c=
an't start a badge program related to these profiles until we answer this q=
uestion and have a rollout plan. We could have an approach that required attestation to=
doing the right thing and the community verifies as opposed to having a te=
chnical testing solution which will take more time. We have to be really ca=
reful about this though.
- The following group of folks will look at how to jump start a bad=
ging program for the TAC to review and consider: (AI ) Eric G, J=
anemarie, Albert, Jessica, Matt B.
Nex=
t Meeting - May 9, 2019 - 1 pm ET
------=_Part_1045_485143242.1710824984237--