Refeds


Subject RE: Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
From Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
Date Fri, 9 Jul 2010 14:38:20 +0000

Mark
What came up in the publishers' group was, I think, around getting publishers connected in the first place. But I get the feeling you are talking about routing monitoring thereafter? The work item just got a bit bigger, I think.

Andrew

--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser
JANET(UK), Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, OX11 0SG, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Fax: +44 (0) 1235 822399

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Williams (JISC) [mailto:m.williams@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 July 2010 15:36
> To: Nicole Harris; Andrew Cormack
> Cc: Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx; REFeds
> Subject: RE: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
> 
> Just to add to Nicole's point. "test systems against accounts from
> campus authentication systems" is certainly a  major request from a
> very significant number of publishers and an early warning system of
> some sort would do a lot to enable us to show the community that shib
> issues are actively addressed when they are occuring. It would also be
> the first element in a process of making the publishers get information
> out early about problems when they occur- rather than what can happen
> at the moment,  where they communicate on a global basis when they see
> complaints reach a tipping point.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Nicole Harris [mailto:n.harris@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 July 2010 15:24
> To: Andrew Cormack
> Cc: Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx; REFeds
> Subject: Re: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pulling this together Andrew.
> 
> There is a huge amount of interest in the UK in improving testing
> processes, especially as many of the big publishers seem to have had
> outages recently.  I'm really interested in taking this forward so
> would be happy to 'lead' on that area.  I think it is probably one
> space that doesn't neatly map across to the revised REFEDs workplan but
> we can take a look at fitting it in as a workpackage.
> 
> Discovery is obviously well developed, the publisher's group will be a
> good conduit in terms of pushing the shib roadmap developments out.
> 
> The other two would fit well under the general heading of
> 'harmonisation'.
> 
> Andrew Cormack wrote:
> 
> Steve
> Apologies for the long delay, but it's been a crazy few weeks for
> conferences and other meetings. At the REFEDs meeting in Vilnius I
> agreed to write up the publisher discussions in a form that could be
> considered for inclusion in the REFEDs work plan, so the main purpose
> of this mail is to discharge that item. Combining your e-mails and the
> stuff already on the wiki, I've come up with the following five.
> 
> 1. Discovery
> Publishers' primary concern in the Discovery space is developing
> recommendations on dealing with what they see as the exploding number
> of Higher Ed/Research Shibboleth Federations (currently more than 30).
> The NISO Web SSO WG's recommendations to publishers will likely run
> parallel to the Shibboleth "Discovery Service 2.0 Roadmap"
> (https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/SHIB2/DSRoadmap) including
> recommending that Service Providers use a DS that is integrated into
> the SP site rather than relying on Federation supplied DS services.The
> WG's Final Report will be distributed to Publishers this summer.
> 
> 2. Standardising/Simplifying Processes and Workflows
> Publishers are very interested in simplifying some of the current
> processes:
> *       the process of making a Publisher accessible from the Nth
> Federation;
> *       the process of on-boarding a campus to a Publisher and using
> SAML-based access;
> *       defining standard approaches for reaching a deep link AND
> simultaneously identifying the user or IDP;
> *       etc.
> Reaching agreement on these questions will require consensus among the
> publishers and the large group of Federations.
> 
> 3. Personal Data Laws
> There seem to be three main concerns
> *       Understanding different definitions of personal data
> *       Understanding when personal data can be disclosed/used
> ("consent" vs "necessity")
> *       Understanding when personal data can be transferred into and
> out of the European Economic Area
> 
> 4. Standards for Digital Certificates
> There seem to be some differences between federations on whether self-
> signed certificates are acceptable, or whether certificates need to be
> issued or certified by particular bodies
> 
> 5. Standards for providing campus test accounts
> It would be useful to have guidance on when and how publishers can test
> systems against accounts from campus authentication systems. We have
> briefly discussed this at a REFEDs meeting and concluded that the most
> realistic (and safest) test would be to seek volunteer library services
> to work with interested publishers.
> 
> 
> Most of them seem to relate to existing REFEDs work items on the list
> that Licia has already circulated (most obviously number 3 is the same
> as my existing work item!) so I'd suggest that where possible we
> distribute them among the existing work items rather than creating a
> separate "work with publishers" item that would risk duplicate parts of
> others. But it's up to the group whether they want to do it that way,
> and indeed if they decide there are some of these that they don't want
> to include.
> 
> The group may also have views on the best way to incorporate publisher
> representatives. However the term "work item" may suggest that REFEDs
> has a more formal (sub-)structure than is actually the case! In effect
> REFEDs is a mailing list and biannual face-to-face meeting. In between
> the meetings members get on with working on the items they are
> particularly interested in, using whatever communication methods are
> most appropriate. Each work item has a leader who is supposed to ensure
> that there is a report on progress at each meeting. So at the moment,
> people get involved by joining a meeting or the mailing list and then
> talking to the informal groups working on chosen items. So it seems to
> me that the natural way for publishers to join in is to have the
> coordinating people join the REFEDs list and then either they, or
> others they recommend, get involved in the relevant informal groups.
> 
> Comments and suggestions?
> Andrew
> 
> --
> Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser
> JANET(UK), Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation
> Campus, Didcot, OX11 0SG, UK
> Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
> Fax: +44 (0) 1235 822399
> 
> JANET, the UK's education and research network
> 
> JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
> by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
> and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx]
> 	Sent: 08 June 2010 23:50
> 	To: REFeds
> 	Subject: Re: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs
> meeting
> 
> 	At 2:21 PM +0200 6/7/10, Licia Florio wrote:
> 
> 
> 		c. Working with publishers
> 		-----------------------------
> 		Andrew reported on the initial calls between a some of
> REFEDs
> 		participants and publishers. Andrew noted that the
> publishers when
> 		approached were very positive about the REFEDs. They felt
> that REFEDs
> 
> 
> 	is
> 
> 
> 		the only forum where their needs can be discussed in an
> international
> 		context.
> 
> 
> 	The Publishers were very interested in simplifying some of the
> 	current processes -- the process of making a Publisher accessible
> 	from the Nth Federation, the process of on-boarding a campus to a
> 	Publisher and using SAML-based access, defining standard
> approaches
> 	for reaching a deep link AND simultaneously identifying the user
> or
> 	IDP, etc. Reaching agreement on these questions will require
> 	consensus among the publishers and the large group of
> Federations;
> 	REFEDS seems like a logical place to host that conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 		As engaging with the publishers can result in discussing a
> variety of
> 		issues, Andrew proposed that he would, in consultation with
> the
> 		publishers, prepare a list of topics that would then be
> mapped to
> 
> 
> 	REFEDs
> 
> 
> 		roadmap. Some of the issues identified cover licences,
> usability, and
> 
> 
> 	so
> 
> 
> 		on.
> 
> 
> 
> 	I think its advisable to use a single channel/group to
> communicate
> 	with the Publishers, rather than asking them to join multiple
> REFEDS
> 	Working Groups/Activities. I think the communication with the
> 	Publishers and the relationship with the Publishers needs to be
> 	coordinated in order to achieve a successful outcome. Although
> some
> 	of the work might be done in multiple REFEDS subgroups, I think
> we
> 	need a single primary contact point for the Publishers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>