Page History

...

Notes

Federated Wireless Access Update

...

• eduRoam implements 802.11x. Not all UC campuses are ready to support 802.11x on their wireless networks. Only Of the project team, only UCLA, UCD, and UCSD have committed to deploy already deployed 802.11x support; UCB, UCR, and UCSC will plan to do so. Some other campuses, not represented in the project team, do not foresee 802.11x support on their campuses even in the long run.
• Members of the call discussed eduRoam's relationship to InCommon. Today, eduRoam is a relatively loosely organized. It is more a technical implementation than a governing body. In particular, eduRoam has a more mature adoption in Europe than the US. There are talks of eduRoam becoming more integrated with InCommon. Nothing concrete there yet.
• A question came up regarding how the sub group reached the decision to recommend joining eduRoam-US. Although the history is documented in the Wireless group's meeting notes, Some felt the report should expand on the decision making process. David and Dedra will take the feedback to the wireless subgroup to refine the report.

...

John Ober reports that the Task Force has submitted its report to the campus libraries. It appears that the libraries will accept and endorse all the recommendations in the report. John expects that decision to arrive on 9/16 and will distribute the final report to UC Trust members as soon as it becomes official.

A likely next step for the project will be to 

eAcademy update

Microsoft responded to UCLA's inquiry. It wants the campuses to assert who is eligible (instead of eAcadamy's suggestion that the individual can self certify license entitlement).

This means campuses will need to track and assert an individual's eligibility to participate in the Work At Home license. The assertion will likely be made through IDP Attribute Responses(perhaps a value in eduPersonEntitlement).

Albert will schedule a follow up call between eAcademy and interested UC campuses representatives in the next 2 weeks.

ITAG's User Provisioning/Middleware Project

The project is looking to create a definition/description for a bus-orientated service to enable cross-campus user provisioning. Existing use cases include user provisioning needs in LMS, Connexxus, (and UC Ready?)

A working group, consist of 5 people from ITAG already exists. David is looking for additional UC Trust volunteers. Interested party please contact David.

Agenda Items

InCommon Silver Update

• News from InCommon TAC - InCommon is working with federal agencies to review
  whethere InCommon Silver can be considered equivlaent to NIST LOA2
• Several campuses have reviewed the requirements, some are concerned about the ability to meet the requirements:
  • UCLA will need to make substantial procedural and technical changes to its credentialing process - it's already planned and will be underway in 2010.
  • Berkeley (and several other campuses) continued to be concerned with the clause requiring the IDM system to store SB1386 sensitive ID numbers. It isn't clear as to whether the ID numbers need
    to be stored. If so, does it have to be stored electronically? Will paper records count? What is the retention requirement?
• David will follow up with InCommon TAC to reiterate UC's concern regarding the collection/storage of ID numbers.

Library's Use for Shibboleth

• The library side is working to contact each campus's IDP to respond to the questionnaire.
• UC Trust WG will put up a page on wiki to collect responses from campus IDP reps.
• The Library side is forming a technical group.

Discussion of SAML2 usage (not Shib)

Several campuses are running (or will soon be running) IDP 2.

A few campuses supports/will support SAML 2 through IDP 2.

Reminder: Internet2's Shibboleth 1.3 support ends on June 30, 2010.

There are some well known SAML 2 SP's (Google), though it's not yet widely requested.

InCommon's WAFY does not yet fully work with SAML2. Is this a priority to pursue
with InCommon

...

to conduct a proof of concept deployement with HathiTrust. UCLA and UCSD already support the attributes required for the POC, and the respective libraries will likely soon contact the campus IDM offices.

Beyond, the Task Force recommends approaching content vendors and e-journal vendors. Many are already Shibboleth-enabled due to mandates from UK federation.

There was a brief discussion regarding challenges working with Innovative Interfaces, who has been reluctant to integrate its solutions with Shibboleth. More to come on this.

eAcademy update

Representatives from several campuses met with eAcademy via a conference call in early August. The eAcademy call was to discuss possible methods for the campus to transmit a user's MCCA Work at Home eligibility to eAcademy. eAcademy is generally willing to accomodate a variety of interfaces. The suggested mechanisms were documented here.

Albert's observation is that overall, transmitting entitlement data is a preferred mechanism over a separate feed. However, there are concerns regarding the campus' ability to calculate eligibility based on available data. The general consensus seems to be that the responsibility of determining eligibility should not lie with the IDM offices. The question is, who is responsible on each campus?

Another question is whether this needs to be a UC Trust implementation, or whether it can be left to campuses to tackle individually with eAcademy.

Regardless, the general issue of asserting service eligibility is coming up in a variety of projects. The group will tackle this topic in greater detail during the upcoming face-to-face meeting.

UPDATE: follow up email notes from Arlene:

"On the eacademy topic, my preference would be to have IdP's stay out of the mechanism used to register and track entitlements. It seems like our role would be to have a standardized methodology / nomenclature for reporting the status of someone's entitlement, whether it be edupersonentitlement or other. Our Software Central / Depot / what-have-you's are already in this business in varying degrees. I would not want them to see it as IAM usurping some of their functionality. I'm taking it as a given that the business case has already been made for why one would want more automation of these types of entitlement."

Face-to-face meeting

The chairs will group agreed tentatively to schedule a face-to-face meeting at Berkeley in September. Please send agenda suggestions to Dedra and/or David. Current agenda ideas include:

• Provisioning
• InCommon Silver

We may possibly combine the meeting with a face-to-face Sun IDM SIG meeting.

early December.

UC User Provisioning Project

The group was running out of time on the call. David gave a quick update: The User Provisioning Project's report will be presented to ITLC at its September meeting. David asks everyone to read the ?User Provisioning documents (skip down to the Documents section), touch base with his/her CIO and ITAG representatives, and provide any feedback via the UC Trust mailing list.

Next Month

Discussion topic for the October call: InCommon Silver certification and the UC User Provisioning ProjectThe group had agreed to move to a bi-monthly call schedule, but decided to continue the call monthly until the September face-to-face meeting. The group will determine future meeting schedules at the face-to-face meeting.