Attending
- 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
Regrets
- 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)
Discussion
- 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 https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/InCCollaborate/2019-Feb-27
- 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 http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.107.1
- 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 http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.107.1
- 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 https://refeds.org/profile/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 https://www.okta.com/ 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 https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/x/XoGlC
- 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