Versions Compared


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



  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair)
  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska
  • Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago  
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2
  • Brad Christ, Eastern Washington University  
  • Eric Goodman, UCOP - TAC Representative to CTAB  
  • John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab  
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison  
  • John Pfeifer, University of Maryland   
  • Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2   


  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan
  • Adam Lewenberg , Stanford  
  • Ann West, Internet2    
  • Albert Wu, Internet2  

Action Items

  • [AI] (Jon) submit TechEx 2019 proposal around Baseline Expectations, with David and Brett and Rachana as presenters
  • [AI] (MC) reply to Scott K that CTAB is interested in the SIRTFI collaboration and ask   ScottK to join an upcoming CTAB call to discuss more details
  • [AI] (David and Brett) draft a communication to the InCommon Participants list stating
    • We’re coming to close  of Baseline Expectations phase 1.  
    • We will be entering a new phase.
    • Here are the topics we have been looking at.
    • Which  are you passionate about?  (Share some of the draft docs)


  • Agenda Bash
  • Partnering with Sirtfi WG - (MC/David)  
    • There was a request from Scott Koranda for CTAB to partner with SIRTFI
    • [AI] (MC) will reply to Scott Koranda that CTAB is interested in  the SIRTFI collaboration and ask  ScottK to join an upcoming CTAB call to discuss more details
    • Review Baseline Expectations (BE) Adherence Guide language - feedbacks, next steps (David) (30 min)
      • The draft BE Adherence guide is excellent, wish we had one for the current BE
      • Is there a way of validating each item in the adherence guide?
      • For example,  encryption of endpoints, how would that be ensured?
      • For several suggested new BE items, it will be hard to automate validation
      • In such cases, adherence will need to be self asserted
      • Could have a task list (for InCommon Operations) to define the work needed to support validations
      • Push off requirement for REFEDS MFA to a later date?
      • In February 2019, CTAB decided to focus on SIRTFI first, before REFEDs MFA
      • We could present to the community a longer term plan/roadmap, that we will include REFEDs MFA as a longer term part of Baseline
      • We may want to find out from the community what’s most important to them. (for example, focus on SIRTFI or on REFEDs MFA)
      • Could require, as part of baseline, that an organization have a long term plan to implement REFEDs MFA
      • It’s up to CTAB to decide how we want to “program” our communications to the InCommon community
      • Will need to go through the community consensus process
      • Comment from the VO point of view, it's necessary for both SIRTFI and REFEDs MFA to get full value  
      • It is important to encourage the community to provide feedback and input once CTAB presents its draft plan
      • Plan
        • reach out, sharing the proposed plan via message to InCommon Participants
        • Then have community consensus process
        • We need a separate doc with a very clear call for action and explaining how to provide feedback  
        • Process will include tabletop exercise
      • We might share with newer CTAB members the table top exercise practice CTAB did in 2018
      • AUTHN Context and Shib issues and REFEDs MFA
        • Different campuses have different level of resources / ability to adhere to new baseline expectations.
        • Need to keep in mind the Issue of meeting proposed  new BE for campuses that don’t use Shib.
        • Eric G did survey of UC campuses on level of effort to support authn context. He got estimates of as little of one hour and up to 40 hours.
        • This team should lead the way, even if REFEDs MFA is hard…
        • Perhaps InCommon can help orgs who are running a Shib IDP to respond to an authn context request
        • OKTA and ADFS may provide better solutions in time
      • Eric Goodman can serve as liaison between CTAB and the InCommon IDP as a Service Working Group
      • SIRTFI has no dependence on technology an org is running.
      • R&S does have dependence on technology
      • REFEDs MFA has even steeper dependence on technology
      • Are we ready to consider the current documents a draft package for BE V2?
      • Agreed CTAB should start to engage the community (participants list) with  a draft proposal
      • [AI] (David and Brett) draft a communication to the community  of
        • we’re coming to close of Baseline Expectations phase 1.  
        • We will be entering a new phase.
        • Here are the topics we have been looking at.
        • Which  are you passionate about?  (Share some of the draft docs)

Possible submission CTAB event(s) at TechEx (December) (all)

  • Tech Ex Call for Proposal closes on May 17
  • [AI] (Jon)  will submit TechEx proposal around Baseline, with David and Brett and Rachana as presenters

Not Discussed on May 8 CTAB call. (Discuss on a future call)

    • Timing and logistics for community consensus review (10 min)
    • Badging - introduction, recap, and how CTAB may participate / leverage it (David) (10 min)
  • Future CTAB agenda items - CTAB roadmap: are there other items CTAB wish to engage in beyond Baseline requirements

Next CTAB Call: Wed May 22, 2019 at 4pm ET