Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Title

VO Assessment

DescriptionSeveral 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.
ProposerHeather Flanagan
Resource requirementsMinimal effort, support for a survey, and kittens
+1'sNiels 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.

ProposerTom Barton
Resource requirementsA 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'sRomain Wartel, Michal Prochazka, Scott Koranda, Wendy Petersen (CAF), Niels van Dijk, Heather Flanagan, Maarten Kremers (SURFnet / Geant JRA3)
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:

  • Perun: {vo_name}:{group_name}:{sub_group_name}:...
  • SufConext: urn:collab:group:{group_provider}:{group_name}

Protocols which work with groups and theirs requirements on the group name:

  • VOOT: apart from id (usually UUID) it uses displayName which is a translatable string giving the group a human friendly name. The name is supposed to give a clear meaning for users setting up access control.
  • SCIM: apart from id (usually UUID) it uses displayName: A human readable name for the Group. 
ProposerMichal Prochazka (CESNET)
Resource requirementsSeveral conference calls should be enough for setting up the working group and produce recommendation on nameing schema for groups including VO identification.
+1'sScott Koranda, Wendy Petersen (CAF), Niels van Dijk (SURFnet), Heather Flanagan, Tom Barton, Slavek Licehammer (CESNET), Maarten Kremers (SURFnet / Geant JRA3)

Group 3: Federation Operator Best Practices

Title

eduGAIN Recommended Practices

DescriptionWith edugain gaining steam, national Feds are trying different approaches to managing import, export, and filtering. This activity would review an early harvest of national Fed experiences and produce recommended practices that national Feds can use to produce a more consistent experience for IdPs and SPs, and hence for users.
ProposerTom Barton
Resource requirementsPerhaps 6 conference calls for a working group to organize, gather materials, net out essential recommendations. Someone to edit a resulting doc. Email list support.
+1'sMikael Linden, Jean-François Guezou, Ann West, Heather Flanagan, Maarten Kremers
Title

Focus on R&S adoption

DescriptionWhat is needed to jump start R&S programs in more national Feds? Produce recommendations, possibly including training, template processes and communication materials, live exchanges between Feds with established practices and others getting ready to dig into it.
ProposerAnn West (communicated by Tom Barton, as version history will attest)
Resource requirementsWorking Group with representation from a couple of national Feds already doing R&S with a couple not quite there yet. Maybe 6 conference calls and list support. Could lead to a further event programming activity.
+1'sScott Koranda, Wendy Petersen (CAF), Ann West (wink), Andrew Cormack, Maarten Kremers
Title

Contacts in Metadata

Description

As interfederation increases in scope, so does the importance of contact information in metadata. The goal of this work group is to clarify and perhaps profile the use of contacts in metadata. Possible work items include:

  • Under what situations (if any) is contact information required?
  • What are the intended uses of specific contact types?
  • Clarify the use of the mailto: prefix.
  • Standardize the usage of GivenName and SurName elements in metadata.
  • Recommend new contact types as needed (e.g., a security contact)
  • Discourage the use of individual email addresses in favor of role-based email addresses (such as help_desk@example.org)
ProposerTom Scavo
Resource requirementsFederations have a long history of the use of contact information in metadata and so widespread agreement may be difficult to achieve but presumably the results of this working group will make it easier for entities to interfederate
+1'sScott Cantor

...