Federations 101: The U.T. System Identity Management Federation

1
Federations 101 The U.T. System Identity
Management Federation

• Internet2 Member Meeting
• Fall 2006
• Paul Caskey

2
Agenda

• Background
• What have we done?
• How did we do it?
• Why did we do it?
• How do we govern it?
• What does the future hold?

3
Background

• 16 Institutions
• 9 academic
• 6 health
• 1 System Administration
• 16 unique organizations, budgets, problems, ideas
• Drivers for change
• Collaboration
• Shared Services
• Compliance
• Reduced sign-on

4
What have we done?

• Established the U.T. System Identity Management
  Federation
• 16 UT institutions
• Federation and Member (IdP and SP) policies
• Shibboleth/SAML
• VeriSign PKI

5
How did we do it?

• IdM Statement of Direction
• NMI-EDIT Extending The Reach grant
• Shibboleth IdP InstallFest and SP Fest (a year
  later)
• Shibbd some low-risk apps (guest wireless,
  financial reporting)
• Now have about 10 apps, including student
  couponing, legal tracking, research tracking,
  collaborative funding, and more)
• Currently in production, but still a long way to
  go

6
Why did we do it?

• We felt it best to address IdM on an
  administrative boundary - could happen quicker if
  we do it within the system.
• We had an established organizational and
  governance structure throughout UT System and
  wanted to use it for IdM
• We want to strive for providing infrastructure
  and policy to meet higher LoAs throughout UT
  System

7
How do we govern it?

• UT Federation Executive Committee
• UT System Office of Internal Audit
• Institutional Internal Audit offices
• Technical and Policy committees
• Student project )

8
What does the future hold?

• Maturity (policy revisions, support models, VOs,
  etc)
• Higher LoAs
• More apps (and more important ones)
• Inter-federation (TIGRE, HAM-TMC, TDL, etc.)

9

• Thank you!