IdP as a Service Working Group

[Todd Blakemore <>]

On the MFA question you specifically call out Duo, since there's other options would it make sense to re-word the question to be:

from "What Multi-factor/Two-factor Authentication (MFA/2FA) services would you want to be supported?" 

to "Would you want Multi-factor/Two-factor Authentication (MFA/2FA) support?"

Yes/No

if yes, then have the options for 

• I would want an IdPasS product to support MFA/2FA natively
• the other text field for the service would they like? (or maybe have Duo as an option as well?) 

other than that (and what was noted below) I think it's good. 

- Todd Blakemore
Associate Director for Solutions Architecture

Information Technology (IT)
 
Ithaca College
953 Danby Road | Ithaca, NY  14850
607.274.3414

http://www.ithaca.edu/it/

---

From: <> on behalf of Margaret Cullen <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 4:20 PM
To: Mary McKee
Cc:
Subject: Re: Feedback requested: IdPaaS survey

 

This message originated from outside the Ithaca College email system.

There is a typo on the last features question where is says “Click to wriSupports…” — it should just say “Supports”.

Other than that one minor issue, the survey looks great!

Margaret

On Jul 16, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Mary McKee <> wrote:

Hi all,

Please see below for a working survey (thanks to E.J. and Duquesne for hosting!): 

https://duq.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3E0fVcfuQRuzLAV

As discussed on our calls, this survey is dynamic to minimize irrelevant questions (e.g., it asks you what factors are preventing you from joining InCommon or another federation only if you indicate that you are not currently a member, but are interested).  Please let us know by Thursday, July 18th if you would like to recommend any changes to the survey.

For distribution, I would like to propose that we send this out in two waves - first to senior IT leadership groups, and subsequently to a wider distribution (such as the Educause list).  I think it would be useful to compare/contrast any concerns or priorities identified by senior leadership vs. other technical staff, as it will be important to consider both perspectives in recommendations moving forward.  

By our next call, I expect to have some data we can share from the first distribution, so our discussion can be focused around 1) results so far, 2) how to share raw data with the group for further analysis/inquiry, and 3) distribution of the second wave of surveys.  The data we collect from this exercise will factor into every one of this group's deliverables, so we'd really like to make sure that development, distribution, and analysis of the results is a team effort.

As always, we appreciate your engagement and welcome your feedback!

Mary