CACTI DIscuss

[David Walker <>]

Jill, do you mean the spreadsheet CTAB created (FIM4R InCommon GAP Analysis from CTAB/TAC/CACTi)?  I believe their intent to was indicate which T&I-related group would be involved in addressing the requirement, but I wasn't involved in creating it.  Does anyone else know?

David

On 09/01/2018 10:08 AM, Jill Gemmill wrote:

Re: the TAC response, and that matrix in general – what exactly does an “X” mean?  I would hope that we could replace each X with

1. Already done
2. On roadmap ETA date
3. Not a priority

Otherwise, I’m not sure I understand how responsive we are to the FIM4R requirements list.

 

From: on behalf of David Walker
Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Organizing FIM4Rv2 input from working groups, etc.

 

OK, take another look.  I've added the descriptive text from the FIM4Rv2 paper for each of the recommendations.  Note that this is not the same text as in the CTAB spreadsheet, as they were looking at the requirements in section 4 of the FIM4Rv2 paper, not the recommendations for action in section 5 that CACTI is focusing on.

David

On 08/31/2018 01:33 PM, David Walker wrote:

Ah, the CTAB spreadsheet!  I hadn't noticed that extra text.  It looks like it's possible to add a description to the Forms questions; I'll see what I can do.

David

On 08/31/2018 12:14 PM, Jill Gemmill wrote:

Identity lifecycle & linking	Account linking
	ORCID

It may be me that’s confused – for example, first item in the gap analysis spreadsheet is “identity lifecycle & linking” with the sub-bullets “Account linking” and “ORCID”.  When you place the cursor on those boxes in the spreadsheet, a hidden text box shows up explaining what an ORCID ID is. 

 

This topic isn’t included in the form at all.  If the form topics didn’t come from the spreadsheet, then where?

 

From: David Walker
Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:01 PM
To: Jill Gemmill , Chris Phillips ,
Subject: Re: Organizing FIM4Rv2 input from working groups, etc.

 

Hmmm...  Maybe the form isn't displaying right.  The text should be the same between the form and the spreadsheet.  I see it; does anyone else?

I like the idea of asking people to categorize themselves.  Chris, how broadly do you see announcing this?  We'd want to match the categories to the intended audiences.

David

On 08/31/2018 11:49 AM, Jill Gemmill wrote:

I think the categories listed came from FIM4R, not CACTI.  Which one are we inquiring about? Also, without the text explanation (as available in the spreadsheet) it may be hard for someone to fill out.

 

How do we plan to disseminate?  If “to the world”, it would be useful to have a “who are you” selector (IDM staff; researcher; educator; other…..).

 

From: David Walker
Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:43 PM
To: Jill Gemmill , Chris Phillips ,
Subject: Re: Organizing FIM4Rv2 input from working groups, etc.

 

Good point, Jill.  I've changed the text; does it work any better?

David

On 08/31/2018 11:33 AM, Jill Gemmill wrote:

The page assumes the form-filler person knows what FIM4R is.  Who are we sending this to?

 

From: on behalf of David Walker
Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:29 PM
To: Chris Phillips ,
Subject: Re: Organizing FIM4Rv2 input from working groups, etc.

 

Chris (and everyone else),

I played around with Google Forms today and came up with https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd31zq7hC1lMFaKa7VB3fn7tR1uCFu1EyaA1iSB8s3egcpFWw/viewform?usp=sf_link.  I opted for a single form asking for both kinds of input, rather than two forms.  Let me know what you think.

David

On 08/29/2018 07:38 PM, Chris Phillips wrote:

Thanks David!

Apologies for the delay..

Yes, I like the structure and the starting point it has at the requirements level.

 

I have had one or two people ask about and offer personal submissions (or said they would submit one). Now that there’s a bit of structure, do people see the merit to prepare a google form to cast the net wider to solicit input on possible actions? This could be both for the collection effort as well as to ask people at TechEx to respond there in person.

For example, on the requirement  “Increase research representation in FIM governance” we could ask:

 

‘One of the FIM4r recommendations is Increase research representation in FIM governance, how would you recommend/suggest this be addressed?’ and have a text field for people to offer a targeted response.

 

As well, there’s may be an opportunity to create a 2^nd form/survey to capture sentiment on our progress on these points . We could ask people to rank how well we are doing on that aspect.   E.g. How well is I2 Trust and Identity  doing at improving ‘research representation in FIM governance?’ 1=could do more, 2=neutral, 3=no longer problem.  If we are doing better in the scores as time progresses, one could say that we are improving things and that the community is recognizing a change.

 

Thoughts and comments welcome as usual..

 

Chris.

 

 

 

 

 

From: on behalf of David Walker
Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 7:24 PM
To:
Subject: Organizing FIM4Rv2 input from working groups, etc.

 

Everyone,

I've created a spreadsheet to organize the FIM4Rv2 input we're starting to get from CACTI and working groups.  Where possible, I've put comments next to the requirement and/or type of organization addressed by the comment, but there's also an "Other Issues" section at the end.

Right now, there's only input from Tuesday's CACTI meeting and a thought I ("Editor") had, but my hope is that this will help us to structure our response to Kevin as we get input from multiple sources.

Take a look and let me know if this looks helpful.  Thanks.

David

On 08/16/2018 11:57 AM, Chris Phillips wrote:

Welcome to the early few on the list and also to those reading the archives!

 

This list is a public Trust and Identity collaboration around topics CACTI is chartered[1] with exploring.

 

While the sentiment may be ‘oh no, not another list!’ it’s clear that it’s tough to find a place to have dialogue on Trust and Identity topics that supersede or cut across charters of existing Internet2 Trust and Identity working groups. Here on CACTI-discuss we hope we can have those type of conversations and collaborate at the same span as CACTI’s charter which is across much of Trust and Identity.

 

There are many other venues that exist today for trust and identity discussions: REFEDS, eduGAIN-Discuss, TF-Mobility, OIDF, IETF etc. This list doesn’t replace or compete with them but allows people on this list to participate and interact with CACTI in a broader more public context.

 

Anyone is invited to be a member of CACTI-discuss to collaborate or just listen on topics. There may be a chance that topics in here will feed other areas or may receive a recommendation that it may be more valuable to pursue the topic in another venue for better results.

The inaugural topic that triggered this list being created is our review the v2 FIM4R paper by CACTI.

CACTI has been asked to assess Internet2’s Trust and Identity portfolio’s progress in light of the v2FIM4R paper.

 

More will follow on this and until then, details on the FIM4R paper are here:

 

Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1296031

Presentation: https://tnc18.geant.org/core/presentation/132  video(90 min): https://tnc18.geant.org/core/session/51

 

Recent CACTI meeting notes on our work in this can be found here:

https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/CACTI/2017+and+2018+CACTI+Minutes

 

Thank you to the early participants who receive this and look forward to the discussion!

 

Chris

 

[1] CACTI’s charter: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/CACTI/CACTI+Resources

 

 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature