Present: Mark Aldenderfer, Arlene Allen, Eric Brody, Glenn Davis,
Bill Doering, Tom Lawton, Elise Meyer, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch,
Larry Murdock, Glenn Schiferl, Deborah Scott, John Vasi
The DECAF group asked the ITPG for feedback on the portal White Paper.
DECAF would like to know: (1) whether ITPG members favor centralized or
decentralized authentication, broker and session management services for
departmental web servers, (2) if centralized, who would own/support the
service? and (3) does UCSB want to have a portal such as those discussed
in the White Paper?
DECAF is asking whether we should start with a proof of concept on single-sign-on
(SSO) and session management. A DECAF technical committee is prototyping
a server that will provide centralized login, authentication, session management
and mainframe access. Student Affairs plans to use such a server
to support their projects.
It was noted that the question of portals is much bigger than IT – it
goes to the image and presentation of the campus. If we don't have
a champion in the top level of administration we can't really address the
campus-wide issues yet. It was suggested that it might be time to
meet with Paul Desruisseaux of Public Information again.
The default at UCSB is the distributed model. It's fine to talk
about portals, but in the plural. Some were not certain the campus
wants to embrace a single portal because portals are about the functions
one is trying to present and we have several sets of functions. It
is much easier to contemplate a portal around a specific set of functions.
Further, the different technologies drive multiple instances of portals
(e.g., Windows 2000).
UCLA is currently developing a data warehouse backend. Thus, the
definition of "portal" becomes difficult – is it just a data warehouse
with a Web front end?
It was noted that the problem Alan originally proposed (central password
and course-authorization) can be solved with existing services.
The Grad Division noted that they will be hosting a meeting of UC Graduate
Division representatives and that the issue of portals will surely arise.
It was felt that UCSB would not compare favorably with the other campuses
because of lack of infrastructure. Thus, it might be good to have
a prototype to show at the meeting. Funding such an effort would,
however, need to be discussed.
Others who recently attended a Middleware Symposium sponsored by UCD
thought that UCSB is not that far behind in developing infrastructure –
other campuses are struggling with the same issues that we are.
Academic departments are thought to have many needs for common authentication,
but not much interest in portals. Life Science, for example, has
needs for common password management and class membership authorization
by next fall. It was noted that example code for addressing this
problem has been published in DECAF. The example uses C to authenticate
against the UCSB Directory (LDAP) and calls the Entire X Broker for authorization
from mainframe course files. Broker calls are easily implemented
with the newest version of Entire X Broker. The mainframe Natural
Server program is a prototype but could be modified as needs are further
defined (it currently returns an entire class list for an individual rather
than indicating whether or not the person is enrolled in a specific class).
Non-employee students have not yet been loaded into LDAP. Loading
is scheduled for the first week in March.
It was asked where UMail passwords will reside. Those present
at the meeting thought that it might take a year before Umail was linked
to the UCSB Directory for password management. The plan is to pre-load
LDAP with students' perm/pins so they won't all have to register.
The direction is to put ID and passwords in a central protected place and
then let the distributed server managers migrate as they choose.
GSE runs its own LDAP believes that other service providers might want
to implement their own LDAPs as well. On the other hand, L&S,
being more distributed than GSE, might want a central LDAP server.
LDAPS can be configured in a master/slave relationship, so multiple LDAPS
on campus should not pose a problem for the future or necessitate that
students remember multiple ID/password combinations. Auth/Dir has
also agreed on a procedure for requesting additional data elements in the
central LDAP (e.g., shoesize) and such additions are not expected to require
extreme justification.
It was noted that the freeware versions of UNIX are now coming with
LDAP interfaces while the proprietary versions lag somewhat in this regard.
The notion of doing a "portal show and tell" at ITB was floated.
We might present examples of portal projects at other campuses and illustrate
the evolution of their campus web pages at the same time.
It was noted that Senior Officers are sending a clear message regarding
their desire to achieve economies of scale. Projects will likely
be scrutinized carefully and, where feasible, cooperation will be advocated.
Setting expectations of ITB members must be approached carefully.
Thus, for any portal project to go forward it will need to have the agreement
of its potential customers across campus. Other questions such as
who will own a service should also be addressed before taking projects
to ITB. We need to avoid presenting problems without solutions.
If ITB members see something coherent, they can be asked to approve a direction,
but we probably can't look to them to prioritize unclear objectives.
Thus, we might want to build prototypes and show some successes which we
can later build upon.
The group then turned to reports from ITPG subcommittees. Auth/Dir
noted that students will soon be loaded and that our LDAP schema correlates
well with new "eduPerson" field definitions recently released by
EDUCAUSE.
The future of the white page and blue page directories currently provided
by Communications Services was questioned. The blue pages will remain
the same for now as they reflect how a department chooses to represent
itself. The white pages might, however, be delivered from the LDAP
directory when data feeds are completely developed. The 911 database
is distinct and provides matching of telephone numbers to geographical
locations for the purposes of directing emergency personnel. A project
is in place to allow departments to update the locations of their instruments.
This will be important as new technologies allow departments to move instruments
without contacting Communications Services. Something like the current
equipment inventory process will have to be invented to assure that the
911 database directs emergency responses to correct locations.
On the NGB front, the core switches have been installed and testing
is progressing. The OIT moved into their new North Hall location,
plugged into the NGB, and are now "eating their own dogfood." Multicasting
from Engineering still needs to be tested. Site preparation for building
switches in in progress.
Recalling "wireless" discussions at the October ITPG meeting, OIT announced
that Tony Nelson of Communications Services has been appointed to begin
work on a clearinghouse of information on wireless LAN projects and on
documentation of best practices as they emerge. Tony has gathered
many links to resources on the subject.
The Survey Group presented additional analysis of comments provided
to open-ended questions on the faculty and student surveys. In short,
the faculty listed training (1-1 w/ examples-14%), more technical support
(9%), better equipped classrooms (12%) and newer hardware (10%) as high
priority items. In general, students reported a high degree of success
in accessing computing resources. However, when asked to list any problems
with access that they did experience, they reported long lines at open
access facilities (32%), a need for longer hours of operation (10%) and
difficulty with equipment and software that did not work properly
(12%).
The Laboratory Operation Advisory Group (LOAG) held its first meeting.
Funding and space were discussed. The need for both open and directed-usage
spaces was noted. The possibility of using thin client technology
arose. The Library currently has the largest pool of open access
computers and is also open the longest hours. There are currently
more than 100 machines and they are adding about 20 per year as space becomes
available. Although the machines are nominally for catalogue searching,
they are used for many other purposes. As a result, sessions are
longer and lines build up. The Library is now getting requests for
special software (e.g., vernacular language software). This raises
license and expense issues. Choice of browser is also becoming an
issue.
Those tracking discussions on the topic of accommodating expected growth
in enrollment noted that pressure for academic space will generate competition
for open access labs. Questions about the possibility of decentralizing
the machines are arising and there is difficulty gathering information
from departments on their future lab needs.
There is an emerging need for wireless access for portables. Life
Science reports that perhaps 80% of their new graduate students are now
arriving with laptops.
The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) has provided funding to replace
57 Netstations around campus. Thin clients with Internet Explorer
will be installed. Timing is driven by the BARC project rollout (currently
projected for fall quarter). It was suggested that a note be
sent to csf alerting departments who implemented their own Netstation devices.
Student Affairs will support the thin-client server, but there are questions
about how many devices it might support and how support should be provided
to departmental areas.
It was noted that some departments are experiencing high demand for
new IP addresses to provide such things as web sites for students.
IP addresses are becoming scarce and this might become an allocation issue.
It was hoped that discussions of the Network Funding Model will include
this issue.
OIT raised the issue of strategic planning for IT. An open, rational,
coherent, broadly consultative process is desired. OIT is seeking
ITPG comments on the planning process. Sorting out the relationships
between ITB, ITPG, BEG and OIT is in progress. The process for future
funding requests such as the NGB and those based on the Context Document
should be defined. A critical component will be the Network Funding
Model (NFM). The NFM will provide the mechanism for cyclical replacement
of infrastructure components.
Here is a list of current OIT initiatives:
- Intra-building Wiring: $1.8M was allocated this year (one time).
Academic units were asked to submit proposals. A group of "champions"
met and set priorities. As a result the top six proposals were funded
and projects have begun. There are nine more proposals still awaiting
funding. Are these proposals still "emergencies"? Have greater
emergencies emerged? What should be done about non-emergency requests?
Should all wiring requests come through the OIT now? It was suggested
that proposals be sent to the Mark Aldenderfer, Director of OIT.
Refer to criteria listed in the minutes
of the August ITPG meeting. OIT will present a list at the
3/22 ITPG meeting. We will then discuss the amount of funding that
might be appropriate to request for next year.
The issue of non-connected buildings was raised and after some discussion
it was decided to include inter-building requests in the next solicitation
for proposals. We should address critical problems now regardless
of their category. Emergencies still need to be addressed while NFM discussions
about addressing ongoing needs proceed. The need to include
functional requirements and timing in proposals was reiterated. Wiring
also needs to be coordinated with space and task allocation processes.
The expectation is to develop a process rather than to solve all outstanding
problems immediately. Out-of-channel requests are likely to be funneled
back to the OIT. That doesn't mean they will stop, but they should
be integrated with the planning process.
A solicitation for wiring needs will be sent to the D-list and a note
to csf will alert technicians of the process.
- Phase II of the NGB is also under consideration. NOC and BEG
will initiate the definition and start the review.
- Core Funding for the campus ISP connection will be considered.
- OIT plans to host speakers on IT related issues. Ideas for
speakers who are "on the cusp of becoming famous" were requested.
- Outreach efforts must be defined. Suggested communities include
the disadvantaged and incoming freshman. NSF funding for outreach
initiatives is a possibility to be pursued.
It was announced that Instructional Media Day
will be April 9th.
UCOP has formed a Center for Teaching and Learning Technologies and
is communicating with faculty. This will be a conduit for information
to be presented to the Regents and the legislature. A Web-zine will
be published by a virtual office associated with the OP Office of Academic
Initiatives. This unit is directed by Professor Zelmanowitz of UCSB.
The next ITPG meeting will be held on Thursday, March 22, at 10:00 a.m.
in the Mary Cheadle Room of the Library.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
