CTAB Call Wed. Jan 30, 2019

Attending

•  Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair)

• David Bantz, University of Alaska 

• Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2  

• Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison 

• Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies  

• Albert Wu, Internet2  

• Ann West, Internet2   

• Emily Eisbruch, Internet2    

• John Pfeifer, University of Maryland  - guest

• Adam Lewenberg, Stanford - guest

Regrets

• Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska

• Chris Hable, University of Michigan

• Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago    

• John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab    
  
  

Action Items

• [AI] (Albert) will  do a doodle poll to see how many CTAB members will be attending 2019 Global Summit (DONE)

• [AI] Albert will randomly assign CTAB members to work on the gaps, orgs where we don’t have a contact (DONE)

Agenda 

2019 CTAB Members / Vice-Chair update  

• David B - Vice Chair nominee

• Mary Catherine - Chair nominee

• Roster submitted to Steering for approval

• Should hear back from Steering next week

• Wiki content access update: worked out mechanical issues

• The wiki access is coming along for new CTAB members

• CTAB Meeting during Global Summit?

• March 5-8, 2019  in Washington DC

• [AI] (Albert) will  do a doodle poll to see how many CTAB members will be attending 2019 Global Summit (DONE)

• People on this call Attending Global Summit: Ann, TomB, Albert, John P

 Do we continue with the off week CTAB call? 

• Focus on BE docket handling

• The off week CTAB calls have been happening in Dec 2018 and Jan 2019

• Could depend on the docket of orgs not meeting BE, there are about 40 orgs now

• CTAB needs to do roadmap planning and also handle the “docket”

• Decision: CTAB should keep meeting weekly during February at least

 2019 CTAB Roadmap Planning 

• Recently there was a CTAB Roadmap planning call

•  The group reviewed priority / risk / timeline matrix from sub group

• Early emphasis on next stage of Baseline Expectations and establishing cadence for community consensus and implementation

• Group on CTAB planning call tried to assess  further baseline related work that should be done, TomB started slotting work into a timeline

• • Proposed Work projects include:
    • Finish BE for metadata (dispute process for phase 1, below
    • Consensus proposal: Add error URL to BE
    • Consensus proposal: Academic IdPs support REFEDS MFA

• Need to share the arc of CTAB and community work with other bodies who have a stake in the work.
• Comment: this attempt to establish a cadence for the work is very helpful
• Shib v2 versus Shib v3 issues are of great interest to the community
• We need to be clear on how the Shib issues will be enforced
• CTAB can’t enforce all issues on software version issues
• Shib may be a special case where we DO get involved
• Question: Does InCommon CTAB effort include verification ?
• Answer: there are many issues InCommon won’t be able to verify, for example a recommendation to run up to date software
• CTAB should look for ways to make expectations demonstrate-able
• The baseline expectation for “generally accepted security practices” is not concrete, but CTAB will make refinements around requiring SIRTFI , etc.
• What are the positive feedback loops we can establish?
• Should  we require participants to report back software version of federating software
• Question of how proactive CTAB should get in discovering failures to meet BE…
• It’s possible to guestimate what version of Shib is being used by an InCommon participant, but do we want to get into that?
• That will be part of the consensus process
• Q: is the proposed arc of work a good start and should we start to socialize it with CACTI and InCommon TAC?
• CTAB will try to make sure the consensus process is extensive, but only a fraction of InCommon participants will likely participate.  But let’s say 10% participate in initial conversations. Then we need to educate the other 90% and engage them and respect their cycle times.
• Suggestion to publish the proposed work package at earliest possible moment, even if it covers things 12-18 months down the road.  To help education and inform the community.
• More frequent smaller steps will be helpful versus bigger steps
• Could have a schedule laying out  the timeline for new requirements….
• So organizations can potentially  get ahead and handle all of the expectations in advance
• Will need to provide  guidance on issues like add Error URL to Baseline Expactations
• Need to explain how Error URL will be used
• Similarly Baseline Expectations for MFA and R&S will include work between  the consensus and the work package
• Issues around validation and verification will need to be planned and handled and communicated
• Collaboration ready is key,  InCommon will need cloud services in good shape
• Revisit the planning on the next CTAB call.

Baseline Expectations Docket  

• Added lower priority orgs and updated to show RA activities

• Albert is  moving the data to the wiki

• There is updated info as of this morning

• Doing pretty well for priority 2-5

• In most cases there is someone working to get contact info where it is missing

• There are some gaps

• [AI] Albert will randomly assign CTAB members to work on the gaps, orgs where we don’t have a contact

• For  priorities 7-8  there are more gaps

• Question of how long RA (John Krienke’s group) work on an org before we move it along

• Suggestion to turn on required validation of the fields

• First priority is having the right contacts

• Should work towards a date by which this work package is concluded

• FROM JAN 23, 2019 CTAB call: Suggestion to cut off the outreach effort in mid March 2019 timeframe

InCommon’s draft response to the 2018 Working Group reports (as time permits)

• There is a draft response to reports from Attribute for Collaboration WG (Steering, CTAB, TAC co-sponsor) and Streamlining SP Onboarding WG (TAC sponsor)

• Seeking CTAB member comment

NEXT CTAB CALL: Wed. Feb. 6, 2019