**MACE-Dir Call 4-April-2011**
**Attending**
Keith Hazelton, U. Wisconsin - Madison (co-chair)
Mark Scheible, independent
Benn Oshrin, Internet2
Todd Piket, MNSCU
Mark Beadles, OARnet
Michael Pelikan, Penn State U.
Tom Barton, U. Chicago
David Bantz, U. Alaska
Steve Olshansky, Internet2 (scribe)
**Next call:
In four weeks: May 2, 2011: Access Code: 0179884# at 11:00 am EDT (GMT-4)
**New Action Items**
[AI] (MarkB) will contribute the Ohio use cases to the K12 persistent identifier draft.
[AI] (TomB) will distribute a previous document addressing the respective roles in IdM of MACE and Educause
[AI] (Keith) will send a call announcement for the MACE-Dir call with Educause IdM Steering Committee, Mon. April 11, 3:00 - 4:00 pm
**Carryover Action Items**
[AI] (Keith) will issue a last call for eduPerson edits, beyond EPTID revisions, for inclusion in a forthcoming revision.
[AI] (Keith) will develop a Bamboo use case for persistent identifiers.
[AI] (DavidB) will revise the Non-Authoritative Sources Survey
[AI] (Keith) will write up the current state of the identifier discussion and apparent consensus, and associated explanatory material, for use by REFEDs.
[AI] (Keith) will edit the previous versions of the SAML Attribute Profiles documents to note that they have been superseded by a newer version.
[AI] (RL "Bob") will query the REFEDs list about whether identifier reassignability is an issue for them esp. in grid environments.
[AI] (Keith) will take a first pass at revving http://middleware.internet2.edu/dir/docs/internet2-mace-dir-ldap-group-membership-200507.html in the wiki, then run it by the group for comment, with the goal of perhaps finalizing it in the near future.
[AI] (Brendan) will poll the mailing list for feedback on the use of name fields, and whether they have had the need to extend eduPerson locally with additional name fields.
**Discussion**
1. Mark Scheible's draft: "K-12 Use Case for Persistent Identifiers"
https://spaces.internet2.edu/download/attachments/18514535/K-12UseCaseforPersistentIdentifiersv2.pdf
The goal is an identifier to be used to correlate data about students. An example cited was students taking courses outside their home school districts, or moving to new districts and thus using a different IdP.
Would this identifier be separate from EPTID? Or is this more about a persistent credential than an persistent identifier? Would linking credentials through a persistent identifier work?
MarkB (OARnet) noted that Ohio is working on a longitudinal data system for K20, and in that context is developing a persistent identifier that is intended for tracking students and linking their data as them move between institutions.
[AI] (MarkB) will contribute the Ohio use cases to the K12 persistent identifier draft.
Q: Who is the authoritative source for this identifier?
A: NC Dept. of Public Instruction
A: Ohio K12 Superintendent and Higher Ed Chancellor
The student identifier is created at the state level when a child first enters the K12 system.
Q: does this identifier get attached to PSATs and SATs etc.?
A: Possibly, TBD.
Questions arising:
- Is there a need to convey this persistent identifier in the user authn context, even as an attribute?
- When a student moves to a different school district, what would be the process to obtain the statewide identifier for that student? What data on the registration form would be required to enable the lookup?
- Is there another privacy-preserving identifier beyond EPTID, that would work for users moving between IdPs?
- What ought to be the role of MACE-Dir in this?
2. Agenda suggestions for MACE-Dir call with Educause IdM Steering Committee, Mon. April 11, 3:00 - 4:00 pm
[AI] (Keith) will send a call announcement for the MACE-Dir call with Educause IdM Steering Committee, Mon. April 11, 3:00 - 4:00 pm
Draft discussion starter agenda:
- MACE-Dir: 3-4 minute recap of how they’re organized and what they’re currently working on.
- IdM-SC: 3-4 minute recap of how we’re organized and what we’re currently working on.
- Revisit roadmap/chart – see which efforts might be worth revisiting and/or updating; also specify who is doing what.
- This would include developing a list of issues institutions should be thinking about as they look ahead.
- Provide feedback on each others’ plans over the next 6 months – 1 year.
- Brainstorm/open discussion of how we can collaborate and work together in the future (e.g., discussing emergent issues on a regular basis, getting input from MACE-Dir as we do outreach via webinars, seminars, etc.)
- Consider identifying 1-2 campuses with specific issues. Have them prepare some questions for some MACE-Dir panelists and they can engage online for an hour (others could listen in, ask questions via chat, etc.).
- Bridge security and IdM “tribes”. Bridge large schools and small schools.
Other possibilities:
- Adoption strategies for various organizations
- roles of the various organizations in the higher-ed sector, and how should MACE-Dir and Educause divide the work? MACE-Dir is focused more on the leading edge, v. Educause urging adoption of what is already developed...
[AI] (TomB) will distribute a previous document addressing the respective roles in IdM of MACE and Educause
3. Agenda suggestions for I2 Spring Member Meeting MACE-Dir Working Group session: Monday, Apr. 18, 8:00 - 9:00 am
Suggestions include:
- last call for eduPerson revision
- Final input on Non-Authoritative Sources Survey
- Composite attribute thread