ITPG Meeting Minutes January 25, 2002

Present: Present: Mark Aldenderfer, Arlene Allen, Larry Carver, Glenn Davis, Ken Dean, Saturnino Doctor, Robert Garcia, George Gregg, Rick Johnson, Tom Lawton, Shea Lovan, Elise Meyer, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Michael Oliva, Dan Ringwald, Joe Sabado, Glenn Schiferl, Kevin Schmidt, Jamie Sonsini, Bob Sugar, Craig Welsh

Old Business

Since there were no changes proposed for the draft report to the ITB, the report is now considered final and available for distribution to the ITB. Thanks to Glenn Davis for a job well done. (NB: The report was sent to the ITB mailing list on 1/29/02 and efforts are underway to schedule the ITB meeting for some time between 2/4 and 2/15/02.)

Networking

IBW: Consultation with control point representatives where there are cost options for the Year 2 projects is almost complete. The next step is to proceed with the projects according to Scenario 1 listed in the Network Funding Gap proposal. At a previous meeting it was reported that all UCs had to provide information regarding how much of the 01/02 Internet 2 funds have already been committed. There was a concern that this meant that we would lose this funding. It appears that this funding has been spared, however we still haven’t received it in our account. We will assume that we are operating according to Scenario 1 unless we learn otherwise.

NGB: The only problems that have been encountered so far relate to Multicast and VLANs. Usage graphs are available at http://noc.ucsb.edu/mrtg/. To determine your VLAN ID multiply your subnet number (/24) by four and add four; e.g., for 128.111.12, the VLAN ID = 52 = (12 * 4) + 4. Migrations are progressing quickly: Larry Murdock’s is complete, Music is hooked up, and Snidecor will be done next week. The next step is to determine a termination date for the FDDI.

WAN: Our old ISP service was provided by Qwest and Cable and Wireless. Our new ISP service is now being provided by Qwest (with a bigger pipe) and Level 3, and it started in November 2001. There is a new billing formula for this new service, but we haven’t seen the bills yet, because CENIC has not yet implemented the measurement systems. We now have some clarity on the ONI, but it is only the deadlines: the network is to be operational by 10/1/02 and in production by 12/1/02. Last mile costs to provide a connection from campus to downtown Santa Barbara are still a concern. It is possible that they may be covered by our existing fees to UCOP, but that won’t be determined until after we have finalized the costs. Even if the last mile costs are picked up by UCOP, the campus will still need to pay for new interfaces and possibly new equipment in order to connect to this new backbone.

Budget Update: It was reported at last week’s JOG meeting that the UC Budget request did not include any additional requests for either Internet2 or Instructional Technology funds.

BEG Meeting: There will be a BEG meeting scheduled soon to address the topics of a FDDI termination date and to provide details regarding ONI. Meeting information will be sent to both the BEG and ITPG mailing lists.

UCSB Directory Status and NBA Common Authorization Initiative

UCOP has formed a system-wide group to consider acquiring a common authorization software product. We have sent a copy of our draft RFQ to this group as a starting point. There is also a possibility that UCOP might fund a common solution as a “carrot." It was noted that a system-wide ABOG group thought that single-sign on was the most beneficial technology being presented as part of the NBA IT Architecture projects. It was explained that Authorization and Single-sign-on are not really the same technologies, however it was noted that from the enduser perspective, SSO is the problem to be solved.

NBA Enabling Technology

There are four main components of the NBA Enabling Technology:

1. Directories: Each campus is developing directories on their own; UCSB is as far along as anyone.
2. Common Authorization: As noted in the section above.
3. Portal: Which has now morphed into a Content Management solution like Vignette that is being used by UCSD (URL: http://blink-prod.ucsd.edu/Blink). UCLA has also expressed interest in using this solution to support Instructional Material delivery.
4. XML: UCOP wants to start a pilot XML project.

UCOP is considering funding the Common Authorization Software and the Content Management Software. However, they want to fund a solution that will be used by at least two campuses.

UCITPSO (UC Information Technology Policy and Security Officers)

Kevin Schmidt is the UCSB representative to UCITPSO. They meet at least once a quarter and discuss campus security issues, such as firewalls, standards, etc. Since we require identification of a departmental contact point when a network subdomain is requested, we don’t have the problems that other campuses do regarding contact points. One of the goals of this group is to produce an “ECP for Dummies” guideline for the Electronic Communication Policy. They also discussed email retention as business records. Their next meeting in February will address improved communications between network security staff and campus police departments. It was strongly stressed that system administrators should know the Electronic Communication Policies, and should there be any questions, Meta Clow (ext. 4212, meta.clow@vcadmin.ucsb.edu) should be contacted.

address@ucsb.edu

There are only 19 active accounts currently using the ucsb.edu email rewrite system. Since July 1 there have been 126K message rewrites processed through the system (or an average of 600/day). This figure does not reflect the total mail forwarding by hub. There does not seem to be as much interest as initially anticipated. The next step before going production is to develop policies and procedures, and the issues that need to be addressed include address expiration, address naming conventions, and enduser support. Contact Kevin Schmidt ( kps@ucsb.edu ) if you would like to participate on a committee to discuss these issues.

NBA (New Business Architecture 2010)

Currently there are two main initiatives under the NBA in addition to the infrastructure items noted above:

1. E-Procurement: This project is likely to go forward. It would consist of a web page containing high volume items that departments could order from for a discount of about 7%. A 4% tax on transactions would pay for the program and still result in a 3% savings to the departments. UCSB purchases approximately $50 million, not all of which would be discounted. Initial investment per campus is estimated to be $8 million. UCSB campus is not likely to participate right away.
2. HRIS (Human Resource Information System): This would be used as a tool in supplying the University with data in union negotiations and the like. This program will probably not proceed. There is no conceptual agreement on how to proceed, no revenue stream to defray costs, and no energy to do both projects simultaneously. Nevertheless, UCOP is likely to go forward with a UC-wide Data Warehouse, some campuses will proceed with pilot “best of breed” systems and the Payroll Personnel System (PPS) will probably receive some enhancements.

Statewide Audit

It was reported at JOG that there is now a statewide audit of UC’s compact with the legislature regarding instruction. There was a Partnership Agreement between the state and UC for fiscal years 99/00 through 02/03. The agreement includes the goals of improving access to quality undergraduate education, improving integration and coordination within California’s educational system, meeting the demand for more teachers, improving the quality of teacher preparation and productivity improvements. UC receives funding in return for this partnership. The audit scope includes comparing current spending per student to the past, and analyzing UC’s Instructional Activities Report. Currently the Audit is being handled by UCOP, but requests may come to campus at a later time.

Microsoft Licensing

The institutions that were early adopters of Microsoft’s Campus Agreement were able to negotiate really good deals. UC is still analyzing this licensing program. Some of the problems that UC would need to resolve are:

1. What pricing would make it attractive to UC? How many systems are being purchased with Microsoft Software pre-loaded, and thus do not require this program?
2. This Agreement would require that funding come from a central point, but currently software is being purchased at the department level.
3. Recovering licenses from students when they leave.

UCLA is surveying their campus for Microsoft software usage, which will provide data towards issue #1. There will be more discussion on this topic on the TAS mailing list. It was also noted that Microsoft is moving toward the Campus Agreement and away from the Select Program.

Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule