Subject Re: VO challenges - article
From Nicole Harris <nicole.harris@xxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:43:08 +0000

We are working on some campaigns for the end of December and January. 
Some of you will have seen some early
They are not finished and just draft ideas at the moment so please don't
use yet and the supporting web information isn't in place, but will be
by EWTI. I am also planning something similar for R&S for federations to
use as they see fit.  Feedback welcomed

We are also reaching out to promote the importance of R&S higher up the
NREN managerial food-chain.  I like the idea of reaching out to Educause

No magic bullets but chipping away...

On 27/10/2015 18:10, Nick Roy wrote:
> I like the idea of arming researchers with a white paper (see Mikael's note a few back that has a link to a letter in support of CoCo sent to EU university CIOs -
> However, various permutations on this kind of researcher-focused, targeted approach have been tried before.  When successful, it results in a few targeted research universities joining the very small club of R&S supporters.  It doesn't get at the larger issue, which is that LIGO or the NIH or CERN or any of a number of other research efforts have collaborators at places we as federation operators and IAM practitioners have no idea about, and no way of targeting.
> The larger solution to the issue, I think, involves a massive communication campaign aimed at CIOs and Registrars on the level of EDUCAUSE (for US CIOs) and AACRAO (for US Registrars) - similarly broad venues in the EU, Asia/Pacific, etc, if they are available.  Then, coupling that with incentives at a federation level.  Maybe you get a discount on your participation fees if you support R&S (that might work for InCommon, probably very different support/incentive model in other feds).
> Nick
> On 10/27/15, 11:44 AM, "Jones, Mark B" <Mark.B.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> [Mark] I don't think 'perceived risk' is the issue here.  There are no
>>>> users here asking for this and so it is not on anyone's to-do list.  I
>>>> think it would be an easy sell if it were a priority for someone not in
>> IT.
>>> In my experience, most researchers in research VOs don't know what
>> federated
>>> identity is or what it would buy them, so it's not surprising that they're
>> not
>>> asking. If the VO has a computing person (or, fates forbid, a computing
>> group),
>>> someone in the VO might know about identity federation and  want to enable
>> it
>>> for their collaboration. Would having someone from NIH contact you and say
>>> "can you support R&S entity category for us so we can enable research for
>>> people on your campus" be enough to get it done? Because, if so, I might
>> be
>>> able to arrange that.
>> [Mark] I believe that having the right researcher ask would get the job done
>> here.
>>> In any case, I can assure you from personal experience that it is not the
>> case
>>> that all IdP operators simply need to be asked and will then start
>> supporting
>>> research VOs, even with R&S attributes. There are some large research
>>> campuses that we (LIGO) have been asking on many levels, including having
>> on-
>>> campus researchers ask on our behalf, and still have not gotten R&S
>> support.
>>> The reasoning we're given supports Nick's assertions - there is a
>> perceived risk
>>> that someone somewhere on campus can't sign off on. Whether that is the
>> only
>>> or most pressing reason it is not done I can't know.
>>> Warren
>> [Mark] I think Nick's FERPA argument is persuasive.  Maybe a combination of
>> asking and arming the researchers with a prepared white paper that addresses
>> commonly perceived risks?

Nicole Harris
GÉANT - Amsterdam Office
M: +31 (0) 646105395
Skype: harrisnv

Networks • Services • People 

Learn more at​