InCommon Library Services

[Dean Woodbeck <>]

Please send corrections to Dean Woodbeck ()

InCommon Library Services Working Group
Draft Minutes
September 7, 2007
 
Steven Carmody, Brown University (chair)
Janis Mathewson, Penn State University
Lisa German, Penn State University
Lynn Garrison, Penn State University
Kurt Baker, Penn State University
Renee Shuey, Penn State University
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
Adam Chandler, Cornell University
Joy Veronneau, Cornell University
Claire Misamoto, University of California-San Diego
Holley Eggleston, University of California-San Diego
Declan Fleming, University of California-San Diego
Harold Colson, University of California-San Diego
Matt Elder, University of California-San Diego
Ann West, Internet2/Educause
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)
 
**Action Items**
 
[AI] Steven Carmody will email the talking points that the UK federation has used with one vendor, Thompson ISI, to Holley Eggleston.
 
[AI] Steven Carmody will provide a list of the major vendors and their status, in terms of Shibboleth, to the working group.
 
[AI] Group – Review the User Work Flow document on the wiki. Make comments or pose questions, either via email, on the wiki, or on the next call.
 
[AI] Steven Carmody will query the list about scheduling a time for future calls (12:30 p.m. EDT or 1:00 p.m. EDT)
 
**Presentation for Internet2 Fall Member Meeting**
 
Holley Eggleston reviewed the first draft of a presentation for the Internet2 Fall Member Meeting, October 8-11, in San Diego. The outline is on the wiki:
https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/inclibrary
 
Presentation Purpose
 
The presentation will:

• demonstrate the value added by integrating Shibboleth into a library system for accessing outside resources
• convince the audience that deployment can be accomplished.

 
UW/EZProxy Use-Case
 
Using the University of Washington EZProxy solution for walk-up users (see description on the wiki) seems to be a good way to demonstrate issues raised in regards to different user groups, as well as discussing the issues/solutions discussed by the working group.
 
Audience
 
The presentation will be aimed at an audience that may not be familiar with the specific technologies discussed, but will have a broad range of experience. Providing an overview of the problems early in the presentation should grab their attention – they will be able to see that their users have these issues, too.
 
The working group agreed that the UW walk-up user solution is a good use-case for the presentation. It allows for discussion of several issues and issues facing different user groups.
 
Vision of the Future
 
This portion will focus on how a federated approach, in this case using Shib and EZProxy as an SSO solution, can optimize campus processes and reduce maintenance. Once in production with one vendor, it is relatively easy to add additional vendors and services. Shib also allows for defining sub-groups, if some resources have restrictions on their licenses (for example, access only for those associated with a professional school).
 
Next Steps
 
The end of the presentation will include “next steps,” including how participants might approach vendors – perhaps using a list of bullets. Steven Carmody has the talking points that the UK federation has used with one vendor, Thompson ISI. [AI] Steven will email those points to Holley.
 
The UK federation uses a two-step process, selling the vendor on the federated approach, then outlining the process and the technical issues. That federation’s experience demonstrates that the tipping point for vendors is having a critical mass of potential customers. Without a solid customer base demanding a federated approach, vendors won’t make the commitment.
 
It may be useful to have a list of vendors and whether they are Shib-enabled. [AI] Steven Carmody will provide a list of the major vendors and their status, in terms of Shib, to the working group. Given that a number of vendors have implemented Shibboleth in order to join the UK federation, it would be a relatively simple process for them to join another federation (like InCommon).
 
Other issues to consider for “next steps:”
 

• how can we be more proactive with vendors in terms of federating – how do we demonstrate a critical mass of users to begin requiring them to use Shib. InCommon provides an opportunity to do this.
• campuses are concerned not just with the ease for users accessing resources, but whether there are associated security risks.
• Shib log files can provide detailed information about which user groups are using which resources – such analyses of use adds value for a library.

 
**Use of EZProxy**
 
The working group discussed whether there is a consensus to recommend a combination of Shib and EZProxy, as in the UW use-case.
 
Over these calls, we’ve discussed three components of EZProxy:

• The proxy component itself
• A front-end piece that looks at information about the browser user and decides whether to send the user to a proxy or directly to the resource
• A new feature that can redirect a user to a Session Initiator

 
Another method is to use EZProxy with Metalib, which provides a user interface for search functions.  Some universities have home-grown products, but Penn State reports they are moving away from their home-grown process toward using Metalib to access all resources (in combination with EZProxy).
 
**User Flows**
 
Steven Carmody has added a draft to the wiki describing various work flows as a user attempts to access a resource (including location-based authentication). [AI] Group – please look at the document and make comments or pose questions, either via email, on the wiki, or on the next call.
 
**Next call – Friday, Sept. 21**
 
[AI] Steven will query the list about time (12:30 p.m. EDT or 1:00 p.m. EDT)