CACTI Public Meeting Notes from 16-April-2019

CACTI call of April 16, 2019

Attending

Members

Internet2

Regrets

New Action Items

AI (MikeZ, NickR, Rob Carter) discuss drafting eduroam TAC charter

Discussion

Pre-Reads

Review the CACTI FIM4R recommendations and consider priorities for the discussion, strategies for helping us identify and converge on a common set of priorities.

DISCUSSION

Baseline Expectations Update

CTAB developed and implemented Baseline Expectations for Trust in Federation to raise trust across the board, https://www.incommon.org/federation/baseline/
Did away with the older Participants Operations Practices (POP), which did not scale well
CTAB developed Baseline Expectations (BE) for all participants in the InCommon Federation (SPs , IDP, and Federation Operator)
BE was put into place over past year
All participants were asked to adhere by Dec 14, 2018
CTAB reached out to all the organizations not meeting BE
Notice to remove on May 15, 2019 those entities we have not been able to reach and that are not meeting BE
There are 16 orgs with entities on the list, AnnW emailed those yesterdayVisahq.com
AnnW has also reached out to “bilateral” entities with a notice
- CTAB has not put the bilateral entities on the list to be removed from metadata as of May 15. They represent lower list
This is a watershed moment. We have never intentionally removed an InCommon participant because they did not meet a community standard.
There will be a note to the inCommon Participants list about entities that are being removed from metadata

Issue of Certain Service Providers Not Embracing Multilateral Federation

It was noted there are challenges and disappointments of certain Service Providers not doing multilateral trust

Continue prioritizing CACTI FIM4R recommendations

Build on last meetings outcomes focusing on the 5 areas we highlighted:
Where does Baseline Expectations fit in the above 5 area?
Focus of conversation: to identify high priority items/quick wins in the above areas
Component Architects Group will provide input to CACTI on their proposed plans in about 2 months.

Collaboration as a service is being worked on in several venues / programs / contexts:

Eduteams
CILogon
InCommon TAC IDP as a Service WG
Internet2 Collaboration Platform - this is a long term strategy to use Trusted Access Platform to streamline creation of working groups using Confluence, email lists, JIRA

Q: this is being driven by the needs of Working Groups and perhaps not by needs of researchers? A: yes, but this Internet2 Collaboration Platform work will enhance the Trusted Access Platform and help the research community
https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/ICMP/The+Collaboration+Platform

Hope to eventually leverage the Internet2 Collab Platform for one stop shopping into services the community finds of use
Important to capture lessons learned as we roll out the Internet2 Collab Platform. For example to take note of how much staff time is needed to roll out collab infrastructure.
There is current effort to take lessons learned from TIER program and use them towards the Trusted Access Platform
Jill offered to help with research outreach
Two slide decks may be needed, for different audiences
It was noted that the GEANT eduteams project is around working on facilitating collaborations.
In Collaboration as a Service, is there duplication of effort between Internet2 and GEANT?
These are primarily complementary efforts
It was noted that discussions are in progress on support models between CILogon and Internet2

CACTI formation of InCommon eduroam Technical Advisory Committee

identifying interested CACTI members and/or other interested parties to work on a eduroam TAC charter.

MikeZ: there is a need for eduroam advisory body. This is not so technical, it’s a way to engage with the community around business operations, contractual questions,
Currently eduroam engagement with the community has been ad hoc, want something more formal, especially as we look at eduroam k12 deployments
A first step may be development of a charter
Draft charter can help provide a framewor
Next Steps AI (MikeZ, NickR, Rob Carter) discuss drafting eduroam TAC charter

Additional discussion
It was noted that InCommon has Steering Committee as top level and TAC under that.
For eduroam, we need one group to be both the policy and technical advisory group. Needs to be cross cutting.
Historical perspective: The founding InCommon TAC drove architecture, wrote the FOP, Federation Operating Practices.
This new eduroam body would report to CACTI and then to the PAG?
Kevin: it may depend on the types of issues being tackled

Important to involve some networking people in the eduroam TAC, this can be specified in the eduroam TAC charter
Eduroam is perceived to be static service, but things , strategic and technical that are happening in the wireless space that require need for change.
It was noted that campuses running eduroam IdPs also need to support users in setting up their devices

Upcoming Topics

URN registry transfer
Send a last message to MACE-DIR list telling people to move discussions to the REFEDS schema list, then mark the li st as fully moderated, auto-reply should direct people to new list. (Keith H volunteered to do this)

Next Call: Tuesday, April 30, 2019