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)

• https://meetings.internet2.edu/2019-technology-exchange/

• 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