Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

 

CTAB Wed. Nov. 6, 2019

Attending

  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair) 
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska (vice chair)  
  • Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago   
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2 
  • Brad Christ, Eastern Washington University  
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison  
  • John Pfeifer, University of Maryland   
  • Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies  
  • Ann West, Internet2  
  • Albert Wu, Internet2  
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2    

Regrets

  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska 
  • Eric Goodman, UCOP - TAC Representative to CTAB 
  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan
  • John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab 
  • Adam Lewenberg, Stanford  


Action Items from this call 

  • [AI] (Rachana) talk with her team to get more perspectives about improving the TLS
  • [AI] (John) talk with his team to get input about improving TLS
  • [AI] Albert consult with NickR on engineering or other practical concerns that would arise  if InCommon does the testing around secure endpoints
  • [AI] Albert  flesh out the BE 2020 doc with more on SIRTFI, endpoints,  and other matters  
  • [AI] (MC)  email InCommon Steering chair TedH and cc Brad Christ with the slate of nominees for CTAB 2020

Discussion

Baseline Expectations (BE) 2020

  • OWASP cheat sheets - how do we apply them  to BE requirements (TomB)
    • TomB: for consumer electronics , not subject to those restrictions. People can travel  with their cellphones.
    • Regarding this BE statement:
      • "All SP service endpoints must be secured with current, supported, unbroken transport layer encryption"
    • Need to have appropriately encrypted endpoints
    • The 2 OWASP cheat sheets demonstrate there are many details and choices
    • CTAB must decide which are satisfactory choices
    • TomB shared scanning mechanism used at U. Chicago
    • DavidB: suggests most restrictive approach
    • Jon: if a platform (eg, Windows) can’t support the most restrictive approach, is that outside of baseline?
    • We  must do the research to tell participants what to do on an open SSL platform and what to do on Windows
    • Hard to figure out the best approach on containers
    • SSL Labs has an API, can be used to measure, provides a grade and provides feedback
    • Goal now is to support TLS 1.2 but eventually the goal posts will change
    • TLS 1.1 will soon mean a grade of B instead of A
    • If we apply the SSL Labs standard to a commercial SP (such as Box) that is crucial for campuses, it will be a problem if Box gets “kicked out”
    • Suggestion that MC, Rachana, and others try this SSL Labs test
    • AI (Rachana) talk with her team to get more perspectives about improving the TLS
    • AI (John) talk with his team to get input about improving TLS
    • Use API to automate the SSL Labs testing?
    • What would be the next steps and consequences and timeframe for fixing if an organization does not pass
    •  It would be convenient to reply on SSL testing and grade for Baseline Expectations
    • There would be cycle time for remediation if grade falls below an A 
    • Issues around International browsers ?
    • Is the suggestion that participants test themselves and submit their results?
    • Or would InCommon do the testing?
    • [AI]  Albert consult with NickR on engineering or other practical concerns that would arise  if InCommon does the testing around secure endpoints
    • Important to provide guidance on how to disable TLS 1.1 
    • DavidB found lack of documentation for Windows on this 
    • CTAB would need to provide guidance
    • Find out the top platforms being used, Tomcat,  JEDI, 
    • There will be some support burden; “I want to do this but I don’t know how”
    • CTAB needs to figure out what is reasonable, be careful in setting a high bar that is hard to implement
    • For those who do not meet this, there would be a process, including dispute resolution, and could lead to extensions being given and/or an exception being mad
    • Steering is the final judge in cases where an entity might be removed from metadata
    • The community will have time to adhere to any new baseline requirements

  • Sirtfi - what do we need to say to clarify? (David)
    • Do we need to go beyond “by checking the box you agree to support the SIRTFI framework”
    • At U Alaska, they don’t adopt SIRTFI as practice, and that would be OK under the proposed Baseline Expectations. They can  respond to a request for SIRTFI and that is what is required. 
    • AI Albert  flesh out the BE 2020 doc with more on SIRTFI, endpoints,  and other matters  


  • IAM Online, Wed. Dec 4, 2019, 2PM Eastern
    • Dean suggested CTAB participate in  IAM Online webinar on Dec. 4 to preview what’s happening at TechEx 2019
    • DavidB volunteered, Albert will help.  JonM may be able to attend as well (if we want more)

  • Nominations for CTAB membership starting in 2020
    • MC worked with David and Brett to reach out to nominees  
    • They spoke to 5 of the 6 nominees for CTAB. 
    • Did not contact one CTAB nominee who had chosen another governance group as 1st choice
    • All seemed motivated to be part of CTAB and were good fits for CTAB. 
    • Good variety of individuals.  
    • We  may need to change our CTAB call time to accommodate European nominees
    • Candidates asked about the next step
    • Potentially CTAB could provide a tentative yes, contingent on InCommon Steering approval.
    • Steering may look at representation to be sure a variety of key stakeholders are represented
    • Once CTAB has the slate ready, MC (CTAB Chair)  would email the InCommon Steering Chair (Ted Hanss)
    • InCommon Steering next meeting is Dec 2 
    • We may request that Steering do an online vote prior to then
    • AI (MC)   email Ted and cc Brad Christ with the slate of nominees for CTAB 2020

  • Planning for TechEx - InCommon and CTAB update -  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bqaBpgZzyVTWEWcQCVFYGxWx6ZZOvLBhb6PPvgwFyHk/edit
    • Review community consensus process
    • Outline BE changes
    • Discussion
    • Capture input from attendees
    • Gain greater clarity on implementation items (what to include; what not to include)

    • Proposed Agenda
          • Review community consensus process
          • Outline BE changes
          • Discussion
          • starting draft for TechEx based on last year’s slides 

        • Likely we won’t be ready with  a wiki about proposed baseline expectations 
        • Goals:
          • Capture input from attendees
          • Gain greater clarity on implementation items (what to include; what not to include)

      • BE 2020 Prep
        • The main Doc
        • Clarification wiki pages
        • Email list for community consensus
        • Draft announcement - BE 2020 entering community consensus
        • others?


      Next CTAB Call: Wed. Nov. 20, 2019

  • No labels