1 / 20

BfB : Supporting Collaboration with Infrastructure

BfB : Supporting Collaboration with Infrastructure. Topics. The components: COmanage Grouper Shibboleth The activities VO versus Enterprise IdM Attributes and Metadata International Collaboration. The “Bedrock” Grant.

adina
Télécharger la présentation

BfB : Supporting Collaboration with Infrastructure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BfB: Supporting Collaboration with Infrastructure

  2. Topics • The components: • COmanage • Grouper • Shibboleth • The activities • VO versus Enterprise IdM • Attributes and Metadata • International Collaboration

  3. The “Bedrock” Grant • Building from Bedrock: Infrastructure Improvements for Collaboration and Science – an NSF OCI grant • Focus on further developing and integrating tools to allow collaborations to operate efficiently in the IdM space • COmanage • Grouper • Shibboleth http://www.internet2.edu/bedrock/

  4. COmanage Scalable identity, group, access management for collaborative organizations, synthesizing identity needs and infrastructure from federated sources as well as internal CO sources Partner CO include: LIGO, iPlant, Bamboo

  5. COmanage • Upcoming deliverables • Implementation by initial VO • Hosted instance • VAMP – a VO Advanced CAMP • More domesticated applications • Federated and social identity authentication • REST API for applications to tie in to for authentication and other IdM needs • http://www.internet2.edu/comanage

  6. Grouper A rich, scalable toolkit to manage group information in the identity infrastructure Groups help consolidate actions around provisioning, reporting, access

  7. Grouper • Immediate deliverables and activities funded by Bedrock: • Federated groups and Grouper instances • http://www.internet2.edu/grouper

  8. Shibboleth • A standards based, open source software package for web single sign-on across or within organizational boundaries • A powerful force behind federated identityImmediate deliverables and activities funded by Bedrock: • Expand web-based architecture to non-web services

  9. SAML federations worldwide – a bit of size

  10. Shibboleth • Upcoming items • Expand web-based architecture to non-web services • Single IdP log out • Centralized discovery service • Improved TestShib code http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

  11. More on the collaboration space • How VO and Enterprise IdM differ • VO often have greater federation needs • VO generally built around unique data sets, instruments • VO often multi-institutional, multi-national • Enterprise IdM (usually) has a stronger LoA • Enterprise IdM (usually) have a stronger infrastructure

  12. Attributes and metadata • Push versus pull in the domesticated application space • Or, real time versus on-demand information to applications? • What metadata should exist so that different collaboration management platforms can share information about their CO? • What metadata should exist in a universe of CO?

  13. Grouper in a VO context “We chose Grouper because of its flexibility, the number and types of interfaces (web services interfaces in particular), and because we could see that it was being solidly developed and supported.” - Scott Koranda, Senior Scientist @ LIGO VO have a need for group and group management similar to what enterprise need

  14. Shibboleth, OpenID, Facebook… • Federated versus Social identity • Federated identity leverages organizational identity, rich attributes and multiple levels of assurance • Social identity, represented by Google, MSN, Yahoo!, AOL, Facebook, etc. provide convenient and lightweight identities for many popular sites

  15. Common traits to CO outside the portal world • Single CO • Probably a command-line oriented CO with an equal focus on person identity and tool availability • Tool integration possibilities with a published REST API • Multiple CO within the CMP • Probably a CO that is acting more as a service provider to various groups than one focused on a single collaboration effort, where absolute control over branding is important • See the CO Assessment Document to help understand requirements of a complex environment

  16. Common traits to Portal-based CO • Single CO • Probably a CO with a more app-focused collaboration • See the Domestication Wiki for apps that may suit your VO • Multiple CO in a CMP • Probably a CO that is acting as a service provider to a variety of collaborations that cannot share resources fully, but where the apps and services are still the focus of the collaboration

  17. Outreach efforts • International collaborations on collaboration • COIN – SURFnet • COIP – SWAMI • Gakunin federation in Japan

  18. URL • COmanage REST API: • https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/COmanage/REST+COnnector • CO Requirements Assessment Document: • https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/COmanage/CO+Requirements+Assessment • Domesticated Application wiki: • https://wiki.surfnetlabs.nl/display/domestication

More Related