Minutes
Attendees: Björn Mattsson, Jim VanLandeghem, Derek Eiler, Joanne Boomer, Andrew Morgan, Marina Krenz, Steven Premeau, Grady Bailey, Matthew Economou, Keith Wessel, Jeffrey Crawford
Regrets: Mark Rank
Reps from other Groups: David Bantz, John Bradley,
Staff / SME: Nicole Roy, David Walker, Albert Wu, IJ Kim, Eric Goodman, Andrew Scott, Steve Zoppi, Dave Shafer, Ann West
Scribes: Andy Morgan, Jim VanLandeghem
WG Updates
- T&I and Ops Updates
- InCommon federation Service management - got together to discuss legacy metadate aggregates project. Features like diffs and edugain export logs were discussed.
- Currently drafting a message to site admins for things they should pay attention to and take action on this year. Also going to be using site admins to do intro to IAM platform. Also working on the other half of operationalizing Baseline Expectations.
- April 17th, IAM Online, Mark Wallman and Kevin Morooney will talk about Futures2.: https://incommon.org/news/incommon-futures2-the-communitys-conversation-continues-with-iam-online/
- Albert - international updates, he will send via email, mostly quiet
- CTAB and Cacti Updates:
- crickets!
Administratia: reviewing and approving minutes - Keith
- Thanks for reviewing and approving notes. Just need one more for last week’s minutes.
- Should formatting changes stop approval? (Albert) for sure let me know, it can make reading the minutes difficult. It’s fine to say, “Approved once you fix XYZ”.
Updates on * Access Category Deployment Guidance consultation (Albert)
- https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/consultation-refeds-access-ec-deployment-guidance
- Consultation is live and we have feedback flowing in. If you have feedback, please add it.
- Comments are encouraged to solicit more feedback before this material goes public
- The current feedback are useful edits and request for clarification that are so far helpful.
- Question: is feedback log the appropriate place to provide feedback, or should we meet as a group to go through it together.
- Answer: At this point, just go through the comment log.
WG Charter Review - Subject-Id Deployment Guidance Working Group (Joanne)
- Working group for InCommon Subject-ID charter is ready for review.
- It will be a long term effort to switch over to subject ID. This is about starting the process. This is meant to address issues with compatibility, inconsistent syntax, and inconsistent approaches, as well as poor practices such as misuse of email address for ePPN.
- Question: Does this include the pairwise-id as well as subject-id?
- Answer: Yes: the “subject-id profile” defines two attributes, “subject-id” and “pairwise-id”. It appears intended that both attributes in the profile are in scope.
- Maybe we could call is the subject identifier working group, because it does by extension include pairwise-id. For now Albert changed the name to the “Subject Identifiers” (plural) working group to help convey that both attributes are in scope.
- There is no approximate timeline of how long this group plans to meet.
- Up to 3 years is how long it will take, but the working group may not need to meet that long.
- (andy) let’s get something out to the public before TechEx in December so we can discuss at TechEx
- (Jeffrey) We need more marketing to SPs especially for this. Keith agrees. Maybe update the charter to explicitly solicit SP input.
- Analogy to transition off fossil fuels - it will happen at different speeds for different communities
- (bjorn) Is InCommon going to make a decision/suggestion about implementing the standard? If 1 of them, none or any is requested (subject-id/pairwise-id). SWAMID suggested IDPs should always send the pairwise-id if any is requested.
- (bjorn) When the first SP migrates, different IDPs made the migration path differently. Make the IDPs do it in a way that makes SP migration easy.
- (albert) Fed Manager allows you to check the box that you support subject identifier. Needed it for CILogon, which has international use.
- Access entity categories specify one or other, not both at the same time. Bjorn would like to see the working group address recommendations for what to do if “either” is chosen.
- Working group may also need to consider guidance for what to do if an SP requests “either” in conjunction with one of the *nonymous attribute categories.
- Who wants to chair this? <crickets>
- Everyone should think about co-chairing this group. Please give it some thought and let Joanne or Albert know.
- Tentatively Andy and Joanne will co-chair!
- Albert will move the charter into a Google doc for comment features. It will be in the wiki eventually
- (Joanne) Does this need to wait for the access category consultation or the fed proxies wg spin-up?
- (Derek) can we send out a combined call for participation?
- (Ann) we don’t need to wait. We can announce through social media too
- (Keith) let’s get this approved over email
2024 Technology Exchange - Call for Proposal is open (Keith)
- (keith) anything we want for the CAMP portion of TechEx?
- Joanne - subject identifier WG
- Derek - fed proxies WG output? Does this belong in CAMP or ACAMP?
- Keith - in the past we have had a session with TAC updates or shared with CTAB or CTAB and CACTI. All of this could be together in a TAC update session.
- Albert - single report-out session is good
- John Bradley - CACTI is working on next-gen credentials, which might need its own session. Nicole will ask CACTI on next call.
- David Bantz - combined CTAB/TAC update on increasing scalability and interoperability
- Albert - everybody submit proposals as individual session and let Program Committee combine.
- Albert - historically, lunch meetings were more about next-year stuff
- We can coordinate within TAC, let’s get abstracts written together in a google doc
- Fed testing, proxies, subject identifier WGs
Email Updates
International Updates
AARC-TREE Project Kicked Off
AARC TREE, EU’s 2 year initiative to update the AARC blueprint kicked off in March: https://www.egi.eu/article/aarc-tree-kickoff/
About the AARC TREE Project: https://wiki.geant.org/display/AARC/AARC+TREE+Project
REFEDS TrustInfo WG Kicked Off
The REFEDS group convened to review SeamlessAccess proposed SAML metadata extension held its initial meeting on 3/28. Notes from that call:
https://wiki.refeds.org/display/GROUPS/2024-03-28+Kick-off+meeting
From SeamlessAccess…
SeamlessAccess published a post updating the community on its efforts to tackle browser change related challenges: https://seamlessaccess.org/posts/2024-04-02-important-update/
In Other News
ORCID and GitHub Sign Memo of Understanding
From ORCID’s X account:
BIG NEWS!
ORCID + @github @GitHubEducation are happy to announce an MOU and a new ORCID integration that allows GitHub users to link their validated ORCID iD to their public profile.
More: https://info.orcid.org/orcid-and-github-sign-memorandum-of-understanding/