Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Table of Contents

#Use this template to capture proposal for a new Incubator Activity - delete this line after using the template#

Participants

Participants

Panel
titleProposers


#Enter the persons who are submitter of the Activity - delete this line after using the template#
NameOrganisation
Jule ZieglerDFN-LRZ



Panel
titleGN4-3 project team


#Enter the persons who are participating in the team that works on this Activity - delete this line after using the template#

NameOrganisationRole
Jule ZieglerDFN-LRZScrum Master
AMRES/UoBTeam Member
Alan LewisGEANTTeam Member
Sergio GómezUCOTeam Member, Dev
SURFTeam Memver, Dev



Panel
titleStakeholders


Name

Organisation

Role 
Christos KanellopoulosGEANT AssociationGN4-3 eduTEAMS Service Owner

NRENsReview and feedback

research communityReview and feedback



Role 
Panel
titleStakeholder engagements


DateName(s)OrganisationNotes
18.11.19



Initial stakeholder kick-off
17.12.19--Sprint Demo 2.1
19.03.20--Sprint Demo 2.3
30.06.20--Sprint Demo 2.6

#Enter the persons who are internal projects or external stakeholders of this Activity - delete this line after using the template#

Name

Organisation


Activity overview

Panel
titleDescription

This activity constitutes to be the follow-up activity of the topic Second Factor Authentication - Distributed Vetting (see: https://wiki.geant.org/x/zLAuBw) of the previous Incubator cycle. It investigates analogously to the preceding cycle how identity vetting and token registration can be scaled for second-factor authentication scenarios where participants are distributed over EU and beyond and thus takes into account the report which was delivered as part of the first Incubator cycle.

As part of this activity a specific flow - based on a community-based approach - will be investigated. It takes into account the concept of the Web of Trust which is also used in (Open)PGP to establish a binding between a key and its owner. While this mechanism typically does not work well in broad user groups, it is very well suited to distribute trust between small groups where a pre-existing trust fabric is already in place, as we typically have in research communities. What seems to be missing is a means to make this trust network auditable and transparent. In order to make the trust network transparent, this activity seeks to identify/develop tools to support this flow.


Panel
titleActivity goals
  • Report on workflow Workflow specification based on a community-based approach (i.e. either in text format and/or graphical visualization such as BPMN flow(s))
  • Report on Identification identification of tools (e.g. REMS: https://confluence.csc.fi/display/REMS) to support the flow
  • Example implementation of at least 1 such a workflow
  • Demonstration at the relevant venue
  • Describe how the vetted identity may be used in common authN and AuthZ systems like eduTEAMS
  • It was noted the proposed work aligns well with recommendations made by the InCommon XYZ. We should discuss.

Activity Details

Panel
titleTechnical details

Based on the specified flow, tools to support and implement the flow need to be identified.

The following outputs of the previous Incubator cycle will be taken into account:

#Please describe the technical details for the Activity. - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>


Panel
titleBusiness case

#What is the business case for the Activity? Who would be beneficiaries of the results of the Activity and what would potential business case look like if applicable? - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>

Many services, especially in LifeSciences have a need for Second Factor Authentication (2FA). The quality of the LoA of the 2FA solution depends heavily on the quality of the identity vetting and token binding. Validating identities and tokens, however, is potentially a costly effort in a distributed scenario.


Panel
titleRisks

#Are there risks that influence either the implementation of the activity or its outcomes? - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>

  • Keep the community-based approach in this iteration as simple and user-friendly as possible in order to avoid complexity which might lead to incomplete work
  • Solution might not fulfil 100% of the use cases


Panel
titleData protection & Privacy

#How do data protection and privacy impact the Activity? Think about e.g. handling of personal data of users - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>

Personal data which is processed during the act of identity vetting must be reduced to a minimum and transmitted/stored by using cryptographical means.


Panel
titleDefinition of Done (DoD)

#Please describe here the set of criteria that the product must meet in order to be considered finished. - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>See activity goals


Panel
titleSustainability
  • Intended to be used in the scope of research communities
  • Engagement with eduTEAMS task and Stepup solution

#How are the results of the Activity intended to be used? If this requires further engagement, can you describe how you intent to sustain it? - delete this line after using the template#

<Enter here>

Activity Results

Panel
titleResults
#Please provide pointers to completed and intermediary results of this activity - delete this line after using the template#

Meetings

Date

Activity

Owner

Minutes

January 1, 2017

Kickoff meeting



















Documents

Attachments