Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <239659928.6179.1711624051896@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_6178_800220304.1711624051895" ------=_Part_6178_800220304.1711624051895 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Attending: Keith Hazelton, Steve Carmody, Ian You= ng, Chris Misra, Scott Cantor, Jim Jokl, Mike LaHaye, Steve Olshansky, Davi= d Walker, Paul Caskey
With: Tom Scavo, IJ Kim, Walter Hoehn, Ann West, Nate K= lingenstein
(AI) Ann West will develop a service-level agreement concerning the IdP = of Last Resort for Leif Johannson and UnitedID
(AI) Keith Hazelton will follow-up on the status of a REFEDS proposal to= inject an IdPoLR into eduGAIN metadata, without the IdP needing to join a = federation.
(AI) David Walker will summarize the recommendation for registration inf= ormation for entities registered by InCommon Stewards
The minutes from the June 11, 2015, meeting were approved.
Walter Hoehn joined the call and has agreed to chair this working group.= He said his immediate order of business is to distribute a call for partic= ipation. There was discussion about the scope of the group and how widely t= o cast the net for participants.
In terms of scope, Ann mentioned that the end results should include tha= t the working group define a testing mechanism for participants to know if = they are doing the right thing, and that the WG develop clear requirements = for interoperability. There was discussion at the latest REFEDS meeting abo= ut a combined approach for testing and for a testing facility for IdPs and = SPs.
Leif Johansson of SUNET is involved in the UnitedID service, which could= be a candidate as an IdP of Last Resort. He has reviewed the WG requiremen= ts for an IdPoLR and believes UnitedID is close, but does not quite meet al= l of the requirements. Ann has discussed ramifications for support and deli= very, should InCommon adopt UnitedID as an IdPoLR. Leif asked for a service= -level agreement (SLA) to document the InCommon expectations (AI) which Ann= will do. Leif also would like a proposal to REFEDS for such an IdP to be i= ncluded in eduGAIN metadata but not be part of any individual federation. (= AI) Keith Hazelton will follow-up on that.
David Walker discussed the status of the InCommon Steward model, which i=
s underway with MCNC. See the wiki for details of the issues under discussi=
on (https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/=
Metadata+for+the+InCommon+Steward+Model).
The model allows for a regional to take on some of the registration authori=
ty tasks from InCommon and allow their constituents to join InCommon. The S=
teward would be responsible for K-12 entities, but in some cases the Stewar=
d organization name will not match the domain name. For example, the Stewar=
d is MCNC, but the domain name is DPSNC (Durham Public Schools). This is im=
portant to InCommon because the entity DPSNC will show as being registered =
by InCommon.
David and Jim Jokl outlined three options for listing the registration info=
rmation for such metadata and asked TAC for opinions. Those options are:
This was discussed in the New Entities WG and Jim Jokl proposed that it = would be best to choose =E2=80=9CA=E2=80=9D unless there is reason to belie= ve that the regional is not following the Registration Practices Statement.= The TAC consensus was to move forward with A, ensure that everything is do= cumented properly. (AI) David will send a summary to the TAC email list for= any response.