TIER Entity Registry Working Group Home
Agenda for upcoming WG meetings plus meeting notes for the past ones are here: http://j.mp/1PWMCp5
Attendees are encouraged to participate in live-scribing the meetings on the above Google doc.
Email List: email@example.com
– To subscribe, browse to https://lists.internet2.edu/sympa/admin/tier-entreg
Working Group Co-Chairs: Warren Curry, University of Florida and Benn Oshrin, Spherical Cow Group
TIER Vision and Overview
Help education and research organizations solve the Identity and Access Management (IAM) challenges they encounter
By providing open source implementations of key IAM capabilities and assuring their long-term sustainability
How applications (whether local, federated or SaaS) integrate with IAM infrastructure
How existing institutional IAM infrastructure can interoperate with TIER components to provide a full IAM service suite
TIER Entity Registry and Data Structures and APIs Working Groups
The TIER Entity Registry Working Group and the TIER Data Structures and APIs Working Group share the following key goals
To define integration and interoperability strategies and models
To help charter development projects that address specific gaps in existing open source IAM packages
To develop a comprehensive functional model of IAM
To define and adopt specifications for the resource schema and interfaces needed to deliver identity and access management (IAM) services
- Between the various TIER IAM components
- Between TIER components and the rest of the institutional IT landscape, both on premise and in the cloud
- Provide guidance on building IAM infrastructure and processes that accord with the TIER model
Standards, Tools and Guidelines set out in TIER Release 1
- Expose IAM capabilities at RESTful endpoints
- ...Where it makes sense: LDAP, SAML, etc. still have their well-earned place, TIER will take full advantage of such common protocols and interfaces. OAuth 2, OpenID Connect and UMA are also coming into play.
- REST-ness in the TIER context means: HTTP verbs operate on Resources (groups, users,....); RPCish idioms should only be used when nothing else will do what needs to be done.
- The model for interoperating with existing institutional IAM services is to provide the TIER components with connectors that know how to interact with both back end legacy systems as well as the growing number of contracted-out SaaS and PaaS services
- An API-first design helps us achieve and maintain a level of abstraction from specific implementation choices. This gives TIER adopter sites the option to wrap their favorite legacy IAM service in a TIER API knowing that it will integrate well with other TIER or TIER-compliant packages.
- Adopt the many useful conventions specified in the new IETF standard, SCIM 2.0 ,
- around the design choices that would otherwise tend to provoke endless working group debates on matters such as pagination, metadata schema, data formats, etc.
- the choice to leverage SCIM, as much as anything else, made the decision to support JSON easier. Support for XML can be provided if and where it's needed.
- The canonical specification language for HTTP-oriented APIs in TIER is Swagger 2.0
- Why Swagger and not RAML or API Blueprint? (see this recent comparison on dzone)
- In the move from version 1 to version 2, Swagger incorporated a lot of RAML's best features (around reusable definitions, etc.)
- Swagger 2 has been adopted as the basis for further development by the industry-launched Open API Initiative (http://openapis.org, more on github here) and that should strengthen the already thriving Swagger developer and adopter community
TIER Entity Registry Update - 2017 GLobal Summit
Key Deliverables from TIER Release 1
Narrative Form: Deliverables in the WG Charter
- Document Functional Requirements for System of Record (SoR) to the Entity Registry Define a minimal first iteration Registry person schema/resource
- Draft a first iteration functional model for IAM with a glossary of institutional processes around identity lifecycle management .
- Draft fit/gap analysis between current COmanage registry functionality and this WG’s Entity Registry requirements .
- Provide COmanage Team with rough definition of work required to fill gaps in COmanage functionality
Entity Registry Requirements
- From CIFER Registry Team
- From CIFER Enrollment (Registration) Requirements
- From TIER campus surveys
- From U Florida (courtesy of Warren Curry)
Functional Model for Entity Registry and Allied Services
- Identity Registry Functional Model (Sept. 2011, CIFER)
Schema for core IAM resources
Prior work: CIFER SOR-Registry Core Schema Specification
Gabor’s overview: https://gist.github.com/geszes/3d4b9ff49441058db434
Draft Based on Schema.org: https://gist.github.com/geszes/6bfd8926bded03786a63
Clemson Authology schema: http://authology.org/doc/VaultServiceReference/vaultServiceReference.html
Penn State Person Bio Record
COmanage Registry Data Model
Person Schema Comparisons:
- University of Wisconsin - UDS Person Schema
- Comparison of UW-Madison UDS Person API and CIFER API
- Rob Carter thoughts on fine-grained authZ on APIs for data access
See Also :
- TIER Working Groups Home
- TIER Data Structures and APIs Working Group
- Background information on TIER , Internet2 initiative on Trust and Identity in Education and Research