The Silver Ring: Inter-institutional
Middleware Collaboration
Michael Berman
Mark Crase
April 9, 2003
22 March 2016
Copyright A. Michael Berman and Mark Crase, 2003. This work
is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted
for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational
purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the
reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by
permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to
republish requires written permission from the authors.
Overview of Presentation
• Overview of CSU IT
• Drivers for CSU Middleware
• Where we’ve been so far
• Where we’re going
9 April 2003
2
The California State University
23 Campuses
• 1 Research Institution (R2)
• 21 4-year Comprehensive Institutions
• California Maritime Academy
400,000 Students
60,000 Faculty and Staff
9 April 2003
3
Integrated Technology Strategy
• In 1997, the CSU Presidents came together
to ensure that each campus in the system
would have the technology infrastructure
required to support each institution’s
academic and administrative programs.
• The result was the creation of the CSU
Integrated Technology Strategy
9 April 2003
4
Integrated Technology Strategy
• Outcomes-based strategy
• Built on Integrated Academic and
Administrative Initiatives
• Supported by a Robust Infrastructure
• Access (Hardware, Software, Network)
• Training
• Support Services
9 April 2003
5
CSU ITS FRAMEWORK
• Optimal Personal Productivity
• Excellence in Learning and Teaching
• Quality of Student Experience
Outcomes
• Administrative Productivity and Quality
Initiatives / Projects
Initiatives
FULL
• Technology
Prerequisites
Access
BASELINE
Training
Support
CURRENT
 Access Infrastructure Initiative
 Baseline Training & User Support Infrastructure
Institutional MW Leadership
• Information Technology Advisory Committee
• Campus CIO’s
• Chancellor’s Office Staff
• Middleware Steering Committee
• CIO’s, Campus Technical Staff, CO flywheels
• Directories Working Group
• Campus Technical Staff
9 April 2003
7
Drivers for a Multi-campus Approach
to Middleware
Financial
• While a one-size-fits-all approach may not work for
all components, some economies of scale can be
achieved.
Political
• Being a State-subsidized institution, proper
stewardship of public resources is always
important, but it is especially important when
budgets are tight.
9 April 2003
8
Drivers for a Multi-campus Approach
to Middleware
Coordination
• Success even at the campus level will depend on a well
coordinated approach. A Systemic effort will help reinforce
the importance of coordination and cooperation.
Help communicate the value of middleware and
the benefits of the effort.
Consistent with CSU Integrated IT Strategy
9 April 2003
9
Service
Outcomes
Initiative
Applications
Middleware
Training
Access Infrastructure Initiative
Support
Baseline Training & User Support Infrastructure
The position of Middleware in the CSU ITS Pyramid when
viewed from the technology perspective.
Drivers for a Multi-campus Approach
to Middleware
Maximize Value of Technology Investments
• Infrastructure Terminal Resources Project
• Common Management Systems
• PHAROS Library Project
Help balance requirements for Strategic and Tactical
planning
Coordination with external agencies (SEVIS, NIH,
etc.) and partners (I2, EDUCAUSE, etc.)
9 April 2003
11
Where to Start?
A Directories Working Group
• Directories as the starting point for more
comprehensive middleware effort
• Ad hoc effort to work collaboratively
• Volunteers/interested parties - 20-40
persons representing most campuses
• Smaller detailed architecture sub-group
9 April 2003
12
Final Recommendations…
…will depend on projected system wide uses.
However…
• Central directory servers (redundant and diverse)
• Submit campus data to system wide directory registry
service (like DoDHE CDS)
• Common view with extensions, unique ID, security
• Minimum central attributes option
• Expanded central attributes option
9 April 2003
13
Future of Group
• Larger scale central directory performance testing
• Automation of campus-to-central data feeds
• Design central registry reconciliation processes
• Lessons learned: need to commit resources, not
just volunteer
• System wide direction: to be determined by
Steering Committee
9 April 2003
14
From Experiment to
Institutional Response
First Step: Middleware concepts
presented to the CSU Executive Council
• Executive Council is 23 Presidents + Chancellor
• All receive Middleware briefing in February 2002
• Consensus: “We’re not sure what it is, but if this is
what we need, let’s do it.”
9 April 2003
15
“Citizen of the CSU” Scenarios
Alice Chu is a junior biology major at Cal State Hayward,
and a Citizen of the CSU. As a “traditional” student, most
of Alice’s coursework is in classrooms at the Hayward
campus, but last semester she was an intern at a
biotechnology company in Anaheim. Using the 4Cnet, she
was able to access all her usual Hayward resources, even
though she was connected to her company’s intranet.
Since she was in the area, she also registered to receive
email about lectures in biology at Cal Poly Pomona and
Cal State Fullerton, and attended one in-person and
another via video streaming etc…
9 April 2003
16
Result: Middleware Steering Committee
Formed
• Convened by CSU CIO, David Ernst
• CIO’s from multiple campus, CSU auditor and
CO “fly wheel”
• Charged to develop a strategy for Middleware in
CSU
• Formed in May 2002
• Report overdue in October 2002 (nearly done!)
9 April 2003
17
Preliminary Activities
System-wide workshop at I2MM, October,
2002
• 2-3 persons from each campus
• Intended to raise Mware awareness
• Solicit input from
academic/administrative managers
• Build consensus for moving forward
9 April 2003
18
Initial Feedback
Need to emphasize “interoperability”
Need to be “standards-based”
Address security from the beginning
Overly ambitious agenda
• Need to narrow the initial scope
• Need to identify the initial outcomes and deliverables
• Need to estimate required resources (staff and $$ for
HW and SW)
9 April 2003
19
Initial Feedback (cont.)
Create mechanism for identifying and addressing
policy issues
Communication (in English)
•
•
•
Central website for MW info
Call it something other than “Middleware”?
What “it” is and what it isn’t.
Work with campus Telecom (and others)
How does it relate to CMS (PeopleSoft)? Coordinate
w/ ERP
Libraries appreciate invite to participate. Interested in
Shib.
9 April 2003
20
High-level Planning
Planning Team convened for two days in
November, 2002
• CO and Campus staff and faculty
• Functional (CIO’s, Library, HR/Finance)
Technical and Risk Management
representation
• I2 Facilitators
9 April 2003
21
Highlights of Recommendations
3-year Plan organized into three phases:
• January 2003 – September 2003
• October 2003 – June 2004
• July 2004 – June 2005
9 April 2003
22
Phase One:
Jan 2003 – September 2003
• Establish CSU Middleware Policy Board, reporting to
President’s Technology Steering Committee
• Create initial IMI policies and review practices
• Establish CSU-wide LDAP definition < EduPerson
• Establish a single, state-wide LDAP directory service
•
•
replicate external-facing portion of individual directories
one-third of campuses providing data to this directory
• Pilot Shibboleth authorization
9 April 2003
23
Phase One:
Jan 2003 – September 2003
• Register the CSU as a certificate authority
• Establish a model and whitepaper to define
best practices for identity reconciliation.
• Prepare a “good practices” whitepaper on
developing campus registry and directories
– recipe for campus development
– statewide workshop
9 April 2003
24
Phase One:
Jan 2003 – September 2003
• Work with CalVIP to integrate of the directory
structure into Video initiatives.
• Working group to evaluate business case for
CSU-wide permanent identifier for individuals
• Get commitment from CMS Executive
Committee to assure integration into CMS
baseline (ERP Project)
9 April 2003
25
Phase Two:
October 2003 – June 2004
• Complete external directories for all entities.
• Move Shibboleth from pilot into full production.
• Develop a plan to integrate campus-wide directories
into CMS and CSU Mentor (On-line Admissions)
• Develop a plan to integrate campus-wide directories
into Pharos (Library system).
• Pilot secure messaging/digital signature system,
possibly based on PKI-Lite specification
• CSU-wide identifier - consider initial development of
technology and procedures for implementation
9 April 2003
26
Phase Three:
July 2004 – June 2005
Complete Integration with CMS and CSU Mentor
Complete integration with Pharos
Extend secure messaging/digital signatures to all
campuses
Assignment of permanent identifiers in full
operation.
Pilot extension of Middleware infrastructure to
Community College and K12 community
9 April 2003
27
Initial Operational Model
• Local/campus Implementation
• Staffing, software and hardware as needed
• Participate in policy development
• Centralized Coordination
• Coordinate intercampus activities
• Coordinate policy development
• Define system-wide architecture
• Acquire centrally managed software & hardware
• Manage system-wide communication
• Provide documentation and project management support
9 April 2003
28
Initial Resource Projections
• Campus Resources:
• .5 to 2 FTE depending on local implementation
requirements
• Staff resources typically already in place
• Central Resources:
• Middleware Architect
• Directory Architect
• Project Manager
• Documentation Specialist
• Communications Specialist
• Program Assistant
9 April 2003
29
3-year Budget Projection
Salaries & Benefits (Six Positions):
FY 03/04 $563,640
FY 04/05 $586,186
FY 05/06 $609,633
Operating Expenses:
FY 03/04 $971,272
FY 04/05 $147,272
FY 05/06 $147,272
9 April 2003
30
Barriers to Participation?
What kind of campus representation is
required?
How do we incent participation?
• Executive Briefing to CABO, CIO, ExCom to get
political support
• $$
• People
Getting mindshare
9 April 2003
31
Next Steps: Campus
How do you develop a vision?
How do you develop a process to achieve
the vision?
Who are your stakeholders?
What are the strengths you can leverage
and limitations you need to address?
9 April 2003
32
Next Steps: System
How do you develop a shared vision?
How do you develop a process to
achieve the vision?
Who are your stakeholders?
What are the strengths you can
leverage and limitations you need to
address?
9 April 2003
33
Thanks!
Michael Berman
amberman@csupomona.edu
Mark Crase
mcrase@calstate.edu
Michael Gettes
mrgettes@duke.edu
Ann West
awest@educause.edu
Please fill out the evaluation!
9 April 2003
34
9 April 2003
35
Development Principles
• Collaborative effort among all CSU campuses
• Maintain appearance of unified directory
architecture
• Adopt a system wide unique identifier
• Common view (eduPerson, etc.)
• Standard software (LDAP now, others later)
• Security at least as good as source
data/applications/business processes
9 April 2003
36
Initial Assumptions
• Federated directory approach
• Common view incorporating eduPerson
• LDAP architecture
• Unique ID (unique vs. Linking)
• Internet2 involvement
9 April 2003
37
Detailed Architecture Proposal
• Distributed directory model (campus directories,
LDAP v3 referrals to all others)
• Domain component naming
• Adoption of eduPerson 1.0 (now 1.5)
• Extension to calstateEduPerson (affiliation, major,
SecurityFlag, VOIP address)
• Provision for campusEduPerson attributes
• Global unique ID based on “uniqueness” algorithm
• Secure directory servers (SSL)
9 April 2003
38
Test Bed Implementation
• Five campuses (SLO, Hayward, Northridge, Pomona,
Fresno)
• Mixed directory software (iPlanet, OpenLDAP, Oracle)
• Various levels of compliance with system wide schema
(mandatory-optional attributes)
• Various population subsets (student, staff, real/sample)
• Various client access methods (specialized search
engines, Microsoft ‘address book’, Netscape ‘address
book’, LDAP command line clients)
9 April 2003
39
Some Results So Far
• Response times are long (local server
capacity, client referrals)
• Client handling of referrals varies (some
do – some don’t)
• Coordination of referral trees at multiple
sites is difficult
9 April 2003
40
Topics for Today
CSU Middleware:
Technical and Organizational
Dimensions
A. Michael Berman, Cal Poly Pomona
Mark Crase, CSU Office of the Chancellor
9 April 2003
41
Next Steps
A number of our colleagues could not attend. If
we were to convene another mtg., what would
we want to cover?
• Items to add?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Better defined scope
Costs
Quick wins
Competing initiatives
Outcomes from the beginning
More HR, Registrars folks involved
CSU Case studies
CCC and UC
• Items to drop?
9 April 2003
42
Some Discussion Topics
Feedback
Keystone Activities
Second Tier Activities
Barriers to Participation
Next Steps
9 April 2003
43
Keystone Activities
Begin with Directories
• Identify a directory lead for each campus and CO
• Directory Day(s) preceded by some survey of
current practices.
• Provide “best practices” for campus-based efforts
• Identify activities/participants in “central directory”
pilot
• Other?
9 April 2003
44
Second Tier Activities
After Directories are on their way…
• Simple authentication? If so, which apps?
–Local (Libraries/Shib)
–System-wide (CMS)
• Other?
9 April 2003
45