Attending

 Members

  • Chris Phillips, CANARIE (chair)  
  • Marina Adomeit, GEANT  
  • Warren Anderson, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee /LIGO   
  • Tom Barton, U. Chicago   
  • Jill Gemmill, Clemson   
  • Karen Herrington, Virginia Tech   
  • Todd Higgins, Franklin & Marshall College   
  • Tom Jordan, U Wisc - Madison    
  • Christos Kanellopoulos, GEANT    
  • Les LaCroix, Carleton College  

 Guests

  • Janemarie Duh, Lafayette College
  • Keith Wessel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Albert Wu, Internet2   

 Internet2

  • Kevin Morooney   
  • Ann West  
  • Steve Zoppi    
  • Emily Eisbruch   

 Regrets

  • Rob Carter, Duke  
  • Nathan Dors, U Washington
  • Nick Roy, Internet2

DISCUSSION

FIM4R gap assessment final document: http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.112.1

  • Thanks for all the contributions.
  • KarenH is working at VA Tech on Advance Research  Computing Task Force doing strategic planning and she may share the FIM4R recommendations doc.  

Tour of InCommon TAC 2019 plans (Discussion/feedback -  led by Janemarie Duh, Keith Wessel, InCommon TAC Co-chairs)  

  • IDP as a Service Working Group

    • This Working Group will be kicking off soon

    • Strawman charter was crafted by Tom Barton  

    • Goal is to reach long tail of research and scholarship

    • challenge of getting researchers access to services

    • Eric Goodman wrote a background doc on SAML proxies,

    • Likely the WG will look at a SAML front end

    • Mary McKee from Duke is involved as the InCommon TAC sponsor for the IDP as a Service WG

    • When call for participation goes out for the IDP as a Service working group, it will be important to recruit from all stakeholder groups, including vendors

    •  Some commercial partners have expressed interest in participating.

    • Q: Who would be the target group for a potential hosted service?
    • A: Hope that campuses could subscribe to this service, want to make it easy for them to hook up to a service, more than a SAML IDP, but also a service that follows (meets standards for) InCommon Collaboration ready approach
    • Q: Is IDP as a service going to drive requirements for TIER software?
    • A: IDP as a service will be built with ITAP (InCommon Trusted Access  Platform) in mind. 


  • Perhaps IDP as a service can help campuses running a non InCommon friendly infrastructure.   So there may need to be more connectors. Connectors may or may not be called proxies. There will likely be multi tenant structures.  
  • There are vendors interested in offering a service to fill the IDP as a Service need and this could impact whether or not InCommon needs to stand up a service.
  • if commercial provider stands up the infrastructure, then do we incorporate their connector into InCommon  Trusted Access Platform? eTo be decided in the future 
  • Suggestion to have someone from EDUCAUSE working on IDP as a Service working group.  It was noted that the InCommon community will have a need for IDP as a service. 
  • It was noted that there can be security concerns with IDP as a service


Q: is TAC keeping in mind the FIM4R response as they plan for 2019?
A: yes, TAC will review that document again http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.112.1

Federation 2.0 Working Group

    • This is another new InCommon TAC (and REFEDs) working group
    • planned to last about one year
    • Judith Bush  (OCLC) and Tom Barton are cochairs
    • This group has started calls 
    • Janemarie will provide CACTI members access to the background document

    • It was noted that eventually the connection of services issue should be discussed in REFEDs
    • SP Proxy will likely be part of the solution moving forward. 
    • Sometimes SPs federate but it does not work in the SAML environment. 
    • Will fit into the solutions being envisioned by the working groups.

      Q: is the solution for proxies part of IDP as a service? Or Federation 2.0
    • A: Janemarie: could be part of both


  • There is also chance to have a follow-on to TAC Streamlining WG and Attributes for collaboration WG that finished in 2018.

Setting Priorities  

  • Kevin noted that Internet2 management may need to make decisions based on the input from the Advisory boards such as CACTI and TAC.  The FIM4R response has been extremely helpful for management making prioritization decisions. It’s about managing expectations around what we will do and won’t do and the pace
  • It was noted that vendors are offering supporting products. InCommon could potentially certify (in some way) those that meet the desired standards.  IdP as a service may come first. Proxy could be at a later point. 
  • Concerning the best way for CACTI , CTAB and InCommon TAC to work together, it has been proposed  to have representatives at each others calls.
  •  Perhaps another follow-up call for the chairs would be helpful.  
  •   CTAB is working on a Baseline Expectations roadmap and CTAB wants to share that with  the other advisory groups for input and feedback. 

Janemarie thanks CACTI for the good questions and discussion.


Rest of the agenda saved for future call

Communications opportunities on T&I roadmap planning (Discussion - 10 min - various)

    • Engaging 2019 planning with CTAB and TIER Architects

    • 2019 TechEx session (Suggested by TAC)

    • Share final paper with TAC, CTAB, Component Architects, FIM4R group

    • Feedback on Results of Kevin sharing this with TI PAG, Steering, Big Ten Academic Alliance IAM group

      • TAC discussed this on the 1/17/2019 TAC call - No feedback noted in minutes

    • Areas already engaged, others places to make inroads to?

      1. Messages to take to FIM4Rv2 meeting at TIIME in Vienna next week (Chris, TomB, Nick will attend)

      2. CACTI review staff write-up from Albert/TomB

      3. Open call to other TI governance groups for a roadmapping session


Closing out the MACE-Dir transition work

  1. Need a volunteer to:

    1. Get list of authors as complete as possible - work with Keith Hazelton and David Bantz

    2. Work with Keith Hazelton to resolve any remaining comments

    3. Work with librarian to get the sunset planning doc published in the TI document repository

    4. Follow up with REFEDS on the following items to ensure progress is being made, report back to CACTI:

      1. New mailing list

      2. Schema editorial board governance

      3. Transfer of assets (see sunset planning doc for full list)

        1. Namespaces / registries (URN/OID)

          1. Chris' work on Les' URN recommendations - status check

        2. Schema (edu*)

        3. Other web content - MACE-Dir wiki, macedir.org

additional future topics:

  1. Proposal to focus OIDC-Deployment working group on a deployment guide for the Shibboleth OIDC extension (Nathan )



Next CACTI Call : Tues Feb 19, 2019