*Action Items*
New
[AI] {Minh} will research at Stanford to see if Sakai has enterprise integration aspects that might also apply to Signet and Shibboleth.
[AI] {Tom} will arrange and send a conference call/agenda to WG for enterprise integration within Internet2 UI contexts for Signet.
[AI] {SteveO} will solicit topics from the group for Spring I2 MM session topics.

Carry Over
[AI] {Minh} will let send the tar ball location to SteveO.
[AI] {Lynn and Minh} will provide the written summary of the conditions and requirements for privacy and security.
[AI] {Jennifer} will send a note to the list soliciting feedback about the UI demo/mock up.
[AI] {Jennifer} will solicit on site feedback from UC Davis about the UI demo/mock up.
[AI] {Lynn} will send out a revised development roadmap.
[AI] {Minh} will develop a list of requirements for how Signet will interface with LDAP and Grouper.
[AI] {Tom, Jennifer and Gary Brown (Bristol)} will discuss the modularity of Signet’s UI and the internationalization of code for Grouper and Signet.
[AI] {Group} will via the list begin compiling scenarios to be used as potential use cases.
[AI] {Keith} will summarize the naming discussion and make proposals to begin defining privilege, task, function, etc.
[AI] {Chris} will contact Minh to discuss the technology managing the user experience within Signet.
[AI] {Minh} will contact Shibboleth developers to discuss UI technology management.
[AI] {Lynn} will write up a person and function summary to express the relationship of privileges to roles and to determine what gets expressed in the eduPerson entitlement space.

*Participants*
Lynn McRae, Stanford (chair)
Jennifer Vine, Stanford
Minh Nguyen, Stanford
Shelly Henderson, USC
Bob Morgan, University of Washington
Steve Carmody, Brown University
Tom Arons, UC-Davis
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
Howard Stearns, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Dean Lane, Rice University
Ken Marshall, Rice University
Todd Sandman, Rice University
Pat Shuff, Rice University
Barry Ribbeck, Rice University
Terrie Clark, Internet2 (scribe)
Mike McGill, Internet2
Steve Olshansky, Internet2

*Discussion*

The group discussed what it means to ‘Shibbolize’ the Signet application. Perhaps Shibboleth can be used as a sign on method granting UI access via an attribute, or granting UI access using an identifier. The group decided not to promote any attribute management system in particular, and that for now the group would like to see use cases where a single identifier is required. Shibboleth will be considered later when rules and processing of those rules are incorporated into Signet. Signet developers plan to implement the Signet WG as a VO utilizing Shibboleth as a test case. There are issues with implementing Signet and Shibboleth on Apache and Tomcat. However, there is an identity provider checklist on the Shibboleth web site that can provide insight.
http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

The group will discuss a Signet-Grouper interface on the next call.

The next version of Signet will address limits of varying types and sizes. The version will include plug-ins with an adapter class and a presentation class for the UI. The adapter class will acquire data, and the presentation class will present the data as either a pop-up screen, a text box or scroll list depending on the privilege limit. The next version of Signet will utilize check boxes and radio buttons for the UI. Future versions of Signet will permit an implementer of the system to author a different presentation class varying in style. The group will further discuss the UI design and sustainable support for the UI in future calls. An alternative to the presentation class is to utilize a JAVA server interface for a specific HTML-based presentation. A site specific UI is desirable.

Could Signet benefit from aligning itself with an automated management system for load security generation? There could be some long-term benefits of this. Complexities with software maintenance and the skill set required to distribute code pose potential challenges as well. The current middleware project base within Internet2 does not have any comparable UI requirements. Sakai is preparing for this type of UI requirements. The group seeks other WG’s associated with Sakai with whom Signet can collaborate on UI design.

Another aspect of implementing a presentation class is the assumption that all tasks accomplished by the UI can be expressed as output for a presentation class. The form posted with all user interactions would take place locally and then the form would be sent to Signet. This might require JavaScript and DHTML for dynamic content. Individuals with experience using DHTML for similar applications are encouraged to share their knowledge with the group.

There will be a Spring I2 Member Meeting May 2 – 4 in Arlington, VA. A call for proposals has been sent out with a deadline of January 21, 2005. The group is considering holding a BoF session the day before the track sessions at the Member Meeting. Signet will be included in the proposed Health Sciences discussion along with Shibboleth and Grouper. There will also be a NMI-EDIT CAMP in June in Denver. Input for possible CAMP topics is desired.

The next call is Friday, January 21, 2004 at 11:00PM ET. A new permanent call in number will be sent out with an agenda prior to the call.