Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Dean Woodbeck (internet2.edu)

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Dean Woodbeck (internet2.edu)

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

InCommon Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 2015-05-28

Attending: Steve Carmody, Chris Misra, Tom Barton, Scott Cantor, Ian Young, Jim Jokl, Keith Hazelton, David Walker, Steve Olshansky

With: Dean Woodbeck, Tom Scavo, Steve Zoppi, Nate Klingenstein

Minutes

The minutes of May 14 were approved.

IdP of Last Resort Working Group

Keith Hazelton reviewed the final draft report <https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/download/attachments/88574036/InC-IdPoLR-WG-final-report-2015-05-16.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1432756184712&api=v2> of the IdP of Last Resort Working Group. Here are highlights and comments section-by section.

Executive Summary - The WG approach was to look at primarily research SPs with users that cannot get to the service for whatever reason - for example, their institution does not have an IdP deployed and/or federated. The requirements listed in the WG report are from the perspective of the R&S community and represent the ideal situation, from their point of view. Comment - move “research support” to the top to attract CIO attention.

Scope and limits of proposed service - This section should not be read as suggesting any relaxation of standards or guidance from InCommon. The IdPoLR is also not intended to be a replacement for, or easier alternative to, a campus IdP.

Requirements - To veteran IdM folks, #6b and #7 may seem like basic SSO, but the WB WG wanted to make sure that these are addressed.

Some comments:

  • need to tighten up language in some of the requirements. Keith and the WG will look at that and propose revisions to the TAC email list.
  • need to address, up front, why just pointing people at Google is not a good option, particularly for research services.
  • suggestion - there is an assessment of UnitedID on the wiki; perhaps do the same with Google
  • suggestion - include any existing data (such as percentage of Spaces users that are ProtectNetwork IDs. Or ask LIGO for the percentage of their users that are not federated.
  • a user story will appeal to CIOs (“my star researcher wouldn’t access this collaboration tool and had to get a Google account to do his/her job”)

Draft Charter for Federation Interoperability Working Group (Nick)

This proposed charter <https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/Federation+Interoperability+Working+Group> is of a smaller scope than that originally envisioned (that is, to have a “meta” WG that would collect the work of other WGs and consolidate)

...

  1. Strategic alignment - write the charter so that it is closely aligns with InCommon priorities.
  2. Problem statement - problem to be solved and the audience being targeted - who is responsible for solving the problem

Next Meeting - June 11, 2015 - 1 pm ET