Participants
...
| Panel |
|---|
| title | Contact data | | Proposers |
|---|
|
|
| Panel |
|---|
Please provide contact details for | | participants involved in this activity
|
Email| Submitter name & email: | P.I. | Other participants... | Tamas... | Branco...
|
| Panel |
|---|
| title | Contact data of Parties involved |
|---|
| Please provide names and contact details for additional (external) organisations involved in this Incubator project
| | Person email | Role within pilot |
|---|
T1 eduTEAMS | Christos | | Research communities | | | | | | |
| Name | Organisation | Role |
|---|
| Maarten | SURFnet | GN4-3 T&I Enabling Communities Task Leader | | Christos Kanellopoulos | GEANT Association | GN4-3 eduTEAMS Service Owner |
|
Activity Overview
| Panel |
|---|
|
The GN4-2 eduTEAMS project conducted a pilot with the deployment of a Stepup Authentication Solution for the LifeScience community. Many of the research communities eduTEAMS supports are highly distributed over Europe and beyond.
One of the challenges this pilot therefor faced was how to deal with the vetting of Second Factor tokens in a distributed way.
This project activity investigates : investigate together with research communities how the token registration can be scaled for scenarios where participants are distributed over EU and beyond |
| Panel |
|---|
|
Please describe the goals of pilot, including activities, participants, the community(ies) that require a solution. Describe when the pilot is done and how to measure the success of it, in a SMART way. <Enter here> |
...
Activity Details
| Panel |
|---|
|
- Investigate and describe existing methods and tooling for token validation, both in R&E and other sectors
- Identify the ones that can be implemented or adopted for use in a distributed environment
- Discuss the Level of Assurance implications of using the various proposed methods
- Discuss the results with relevant stakeholders
Please describe the technical details for this pilot. <Enter here> |
| Panel |
|---|
|
| Many services, especially in LifeSciences have a need for SFA. The quality of the LoA of the SFA solution depends heaviliy on the quality of the token vetting. Validating the tokens however is potentially a costly effort in a distributed scenario. |
What is the business case for this Incubator project? Who would be customers of this solution and what would potential business case look like?
<Enter here> |
| Panel |
|---|
| title | Data protection & Privacy |
|---|
|
| There is no additional personal data processed beyond what a service like eduTEAMS would already be handling. |
| Panel |
|---|
| title | Definition of Done (DoD) |
|---|
|
This activity is completed when: - A report is delivered identifying and discussing methodologies and tooling for token vetting in the context of a distributed collaboration
|
How do data protection and privacy impact this Incubator project? Think about e.g. handling of personal data of users
<Enter here> |
| Panel |
|---|
|
When this Incubator project is completed, do you intend to continue using the solution? If yes, can you describe how you intent to sustain it? (E.g. through own staff, by using an e-Infrastructure provider, ...) <Enter here> |
| Tools and methodologies identified may be implemented into the eduTEAMS SFA service |
Activity Results
Meetings
Date | Activity | Owner | Minutes |
|---|
January 1Feb 22, 20172019 | Kickoff meeting | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Jule Ziegler | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documents
(Attach any documents to this page to get them listed.)
...
