Dear Ravet, As Patrick mentioned earlier, the number of discussion groups related to federation is straining our resources and we should carefully consider how we can avoid duplicate efforts. The EUM and BCTF DG have similar goals and are candidates for a consolidation. In the LF meeting we had only a short discussion about the backgrounds of both DGs. The key points I understood are that the EUM DG is focused on establishing business cases/projects/liaisons with the ECC. For the BCTF DG, I drafted my ideas about it in http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/UIqvAg I would like to see that we could join meetings, some deliverables and if possible to some extent also the administrative structure like management of action items, mailing list and Wiki space. I have no personal preference whether the one DG is seen as a chapter of the other. What do you think? Brgds Rainer Am 03.01.2011 um 18:15 schrieb Anna Ticktin:
Hello Rainer—
Happy New Year! I hope your holidays went well.
As convener of the BCTF-DG, I am consulting with you for a proposed kick-off call date. Currently there is availability on Tues, Weds, and Thursdays. On that initial call we can discuss a more permanent telecon time either weekly, biweekly or montly, depending on what the group feels is best.
Please let me know when you'd like to convene the first call and I can search those days/dates for windows of availability on the Kantara call calendar.
Best. —> Anna Ticktin
Am 28.12.2010 um 21:34 schrieb Patrick Curry:
I already have a working login and have signed the GPA for: IAWG P3WG BCTF DG EUCM DG
The big problem I face is that identity management and federation are now spread across many groups in Kantara and I am hitting disconnects and overlaps. It is very confusing and I can't seem to obtain an overall plan or picture about how the Kantara D/W Groups are working to any sort of overall plan or roadmap. So I now belong to 4 groups but I also see that eGov and Citizen ID groups are treading in the same spaces. I just don't have time to attend all the groups nor to follow up with individuals to try to untangle the confusions. I am looking for help!
My suggestion is to kickoff the BCTF and keep the issue of overlap in the back of the collective mind. But given they are both just starting out it is likely too early to say. Regards, Matthew CA Technologies Matthew Gardiner Director, CA Security Business matthew.gardiner@ca.com Tel: +1 508-628-8598 Mobile: +1 508-494-0503 -----Original Message----- From: dg-bctf-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bctf-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Hörbe Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:38 PM To: Ravet Serge Cc: dg-bctf@kantarainitiative.org; Anna Ticktin Subject: [DG-BCTF] BCTF and EUM Discussion Group Overlap Dear Ravet, As Patrick mentioned earlier, the number of discussion groups related to federation is straining our resources and we should carefully consider how we can avoid duplicate efforts. The EUM and BCTF DG have similar goals and are candidates for a consolidation. In the LF meeting we had only a short discussion about the backgrounds of both DGs. The key points I understood are that the EUM DG is focused on establishing business cases/projects/liaisons with the ECC. For the BCTF DG, I drafted my ideas about it in http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/UIqvAg I would like to see that we could join meetings, some deliverables and if possible to some extent also the administrative structure like management of action items, mailing list and Wiki space. I have no personal preference whether the one DG is seen as a chapter of the other. What do you think? Brgds Rainer Am 03.01.2011 um 18:15 schrieb Anna Ticktin:
Hello Rainer-
Happy New Year! I hope your holidays went well.
As convener of the BCTF-DG, I am consulting with you for a proposed kick-off call date. Currently there is availability on Tues, Weds, and Thursdays. On that initial call we can discuss a more permanent telecon time either weekly, biweekly or montly, depending on what the group feels is best.
Please let me know when you'd like to convene the first call and I can search those days/dates for windows of availability on the Kantara call calendar.
Best. -> Anna Ticktin
Am 28.12.2010 um 21:34 schrieb Patrick Curry:
I already have a working login and have signed the GPA for: IAWG P3WG BCTF DG EUCM DG
The big problem I face is that identity management and federation are now spread across many groups in Kantara and I am hitting disconnects and overlaps. It is very confusing and I can't seem to obtain an overall plan or picture about how the Kantara D/W Groups are working to any sort of overall plan or roadmap. So I now belong to 4 groups but I also see that eGov and Citizen ID groups are treading in the same spaces. I just don't have time to attend all the groups nor to follow up with individuals to try to untangle the confusions. I am looking for help!
_______________________________________________ DG-BCTF mailing list DG-BCTF@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bctf
Dear Rainer, I agree with your remarks and I am open to your suggestions. BCTF having a larger focus than EUM, it would make sense to place EUM as a chapter of the former DG. At the same time, one of the mid-term objectives of the creators of the EUM DG is setting-up a Kantara's European chapter, and such chapter would be an active contributor to all Kantara's instances. We will respond to call for tenders of the European Commission, as we have already done last December and, if we are successful, it is clear that we will involve all the relevant discussion and working groups —UMA is another group to which the creators of the EUM want to work closely. By personal taste (and capacity, as the other conveners of the DG are much more qualified than me) I would like to see the EUM DG more involved in the active implementation of use cases than in their definition, so it would make sense to work closely with BCTF for their definition. Kind regards, and happy new year 2011! Serge Le 5 janv. 2011 à 21:37, Rainer Hörbe a écrit :
Dear Ravet,
As Patrick mentioned earlier, the number of discussion groups related to federation is straining our resources and we should carefully consider how we can avoid duplicate efforts. The EUM and BCTF DG have similar goals and are candidates for a consolidation.
In the LF meeting we had only a short discussion about the backgrounds of both DGs. The key points I understood are that the EUM DG is focused on establishing business cases/projects/liaisons with the ECC. For the BCTF DG, I drafted my ideas about it in http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/UIqvAg
I would like to see that we could join meetings, some deliverables and if possible to some extent also the administrative structure like management of action items, mailing list and Wiki space. I have no personal preference whether the one DG is seen as a chapter of the other.
What do you think?
Brgds Rainer
Am 03.01.2011 um 18:15 schrieb Anna Ticktin:
Hello Rainer—
Happy New Year! I hope your holidays went well.
As convener of the BCTF-DG, I am consulting with you for a proposed kick-off call date. Currently there is availability on Tues, Weds, and Thursdays. On that initial call we can discuss a more permanent telecon time either weekly, biweekly or montly, depending on what the group feels is best.
Please let me know when you'd like to convene the first call and I can search those days/dates for windows of availability on the Kantara call calendar.
Best. —> Anna Ticktin
Am 28.12.2010 um 21:34 schrieb Patrick Curry:
I already have a working login and have signed the GPA for: IAWG P3WG BCTF DG EUCM DG
The big problem I face is that identity management and federation are now spread across many groups in Kantara and I am hitting disconnects and overlaps. It is very confusing and I can't seem to obtain an overall plan or picture about how the Kantara D/W Groups are working to any sort of overall plan or roadmap. So I now belong to 4 groups but I also see that eGov and Citizen ID groups are treading in the same spaces. I just don't have time to attend all the groups nor to follow up with individuals to try to untangle the confusions. I am looking for help!
Am 06.01.2011 um 09:18 schrieb Serge Ravet:
Dear Rainer,
I agree with your remarks and I am open to your suggestions. BCTF having a larger focus than EUM, it would make sense to place EUM as a chapter of the former DG. At the same time, one of the mid-term objectives of the creators of the EUM DG is setting-up a Kantara's European chapter, and such chapter would be an active contributor to all Kantara's instances. We will respond to call for tenders of the European Commission, as we have already done last December and, if we are successful, it is clear that we will involve all the relevant discussion and working groups —UMA is another group to which the creators of the EUM want to work closely.
By personal taste (and capacity, as the other conveners of the DG are much more qualified than me) I would like to see the EUM DG more involved in the active implementation of use cases than in their definition, so it would make sense to work closely with BCTF for their definition.
The European chapter and the response to tenders is clearly an issue separate from the BCTF DG. The other part of the EUM DG charter "gather input to share experiences with use cases" and " identify and raise awareness around the Trust Framework model" is quite similar to the BCTF DG. A shared deliverable should be a list of projects for both projects if understand it correctly. Do you think that we can produce a common document for that? To show how I think that list could look like I drafted a page on the Wiki: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/OouvAg Options to merge our efforts for our common objectives: - some members participate in both groups and synchronize the information - we establish some more formal liaison process - we adapt the charters of the groups to avoid overlaps Any other suggestion? Best regards Rainer
Kind regards, and happy new year 2011!
Serge
Le 5 janv. 2011 à 21:37, Rainer Hörbe a écrit :
Dear Ravet,
As Patrick mentioned earlier, the number of discussion groups related to federation is straining our resources and we should carefully consider how we can avoid duplicate efforts. The EUM and BCTF DG have similar goals and are candidates for a consolidation.
In the LF meeting we had only a short discussion about the backgrounds of both DGs. The key points I understood are that the EUM DG is focused on establishing business cases/projects/liaisons with the ECC. For the BCTF DG, I drafted my ideas about it in http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/UIqvAg
I would like to see that we could join meetings, some deliverables and if possible to some extent also the administrative structure like management of action items, mailing list and Wiki space. I have no personal preference whether the one DG is seen as a chapter of the other.
What do you think?
Brgds Rainer
Am 03.01.2011 um 18:15 schrieb Anna Ticktin:
Hello Rainer—
Happy New Year! I hope your holidays went well.
As convener of the BCTF-DG, I am consulting with you for a proposed kick-off call date. Currently there is availability on Tues, Weds, and Thursdays. On that initial call we can discuss a more permanent telecon time either weekly, biweekly or montly, depending on what the group feels is best.
Please let me know when you'd like to convene the first call and I can search those days/dates for windows of availability on the Kantara call calendar.
Best. —> Anna Ticktin
Am 28.12.2010 um 21:34 schrieb Patrick Curry:
I already have a working login and have signed the GPA for: IAWG P3WG BCTF DG EUCM DG
The big problem I face is that identity management and federation are now spread across many groups in Kantara and I am hitting disconnects and overlaps. It is very confusing and I can't seem to obtain an overall plan or picture about how the Kantara D/W Groups are working to any sort of overall plan or roadmap. So I now belong to 4 groups but I also see that eGov and Citizen ID groups are treading in the same spaces. I just don't have time to attend all the groups nor to follow up with individuals to try to untangle the confusions. I am looking for help!
participants (3)
-
Gardiner, Matthew -
Rainer Hörbe -
Serge Ravet