|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.|
|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 van Dijk (SURFnet / 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.|
|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, Jean-François Guezou, Ann West|
|Title||Focus on VOs|
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.
|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|
|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.|
|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||Attribute authorities and group membership/role information|
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:
|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)|