Page History

...

Title	Fed Ops Security Incident Response
Description	Most federations have wording in their federation policy to support incident response but this tends to be a few words committing the Op, IdP and SP to work together on issues. There is no developed idea of the workflow for incident reporting and it is difficult for SPs to understand the process across different federations or contact multiple federations. REFEDS should define a common process and workflow descriptions for federations and support a lightweight model for supporting incident reporting and discussion - possibly via the FOG list or an XMPP type approach. As discussed at ACAMP.
Proposer	Nicole on behalf of ACAMP session.
Resource requirements	REFEDS Coordinator time, buy in from federations, possibly some small infrastructure support requirements.
+1's	Tom Barton, CAF, Dave Kelsey, Scott Koranda, Romain Wartel, Michal Prochazka

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	Some effort (probably not a huge amount), maybe support for a survey, and kittens
+1's	Niels (both with SURFnet as well as GEANT SA5 VOpaas hat on), Michal Prochazka

Title	edugain recommended practices
Description	With 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.
Proposer	Tom Barton
Resource requirements	Perhaps 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's	Mikael Linden

...

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

Title	Privacy and interfed
Description	Is the CoCo on track? What barriers are there to its adoption? Purpose is to determine what issues a communications campaign should address to improve uptake.
Proposer	Tom Barton
Resource requirements	Working Group would conduct interviews with a selection of prospective CoCo adopting sites, blend with CoCo knowledgeable expert and a communications person to arrive at an enumeration of concerns to be addressed. Perhaps a dozen Working Group conference calls and list support. Support for a small number of group interviews.
+1's	Mikael Linden (the GEANT CoCo flywheel)

...

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)
Proposer	Tom Scavo
Resource requirements	Federations have a long history of the use of contact information in metadata and so widespread agreement may be difficult to achieve but the results of this working group will make it easier for entities to interfederate
+1's

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.
Proposer	Michal Prochazka
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

Versions Compared