...
| Title | VO Assessment |
|---|---|
| Description | Several years ago, the COmanage project put together a questionnaire aimed at helping both the VO and the organizations supporting them understand their IdM needs and business processes. This proved to be fairly useful, but it needs to be updated and expanded to help a more international audience. The old assessment is available off the COmanage wiki, hosted by Internet2. |
| Proposer | Heather Flanagan |
| Resource requirements | Minimal effort, support for a survey, and kittens |
| +1's | Niels van Dijk (SURFnet / GEANT SA5 VOpaas), Michal Prochazka, Slavek Licehammer (CESNET) |
| Title | Focus on VOs |
|---|---|
| Description | VOs straddle national Feds and we handle them in an ad hoc (at best!) fashion. What practices should the interfed community adopt to support their Fed/Interfed needs? Deliverables might include strawman recommended practices to national Feds and roles & responsibilities that together would define a consistent service presented to VOs. The purpose would be to inform ourselves of what it might actually take to operationalize such a service. Could build on the VO Assessment activity proposed by Heather above. |
| Proposer | Tom Barton |
| Resource requirements | A few working group members to interview principals from several VOs or other organizations that support them or otherwise are knowledgeable about needs from a VO perspective (eg, Center for Trustworthy Scientific Cyberinfrastructure). A few Fed Ops to mull this over from an operational perspective. Someone to edit a resulting doc. |
| +1's | Romain Wartel, Michal Prochazka, Scott Koranda, Wendy Petersen (CAF), Niels van Dijk, Heather Flanagan |
| Title | Attribute authorities and group membership/role information |
|---|---|
| Description | Attribute authorities become interesting in VO world, where IdPs are not able to satisfy SP needs on additional attributes about the users especially group membership/roles. The main problem is when one SP wants to accept users from different VOs which use different attribute authorities. There is no common standard for representing group name/role in the attribute having VOs identification into account (just group name can lead to collision among different VOs). Some examples how group names are used by current group mgmt systems:
Protocols which work with groups and theirs requirements on the group name:
|
| Proposer | Michal Prochazka (CESNET) |
| Resource requirements | Several conference calls should be enough for setting up the working group and produce recommendation on nameing schema for groups including VO identification. |
| +1's | Scott Koranda, Wendy Petersen (CAF), Niels van Dijk (SURFnet), Heather Flanagan, Tom Barton, Slavek Licehammer (CESNET) |
Group 3: Federation Operator Best Practices
...