Overview of The U.T. System Identity Management Federation EDUCAUSE Fed/Ed PKI Meeting Fall 2006
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?
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
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
How did we do it? • IdM Statement of Direction • NMI-EDIT “Extending The Reach” grant • Shibboleth IdP InstallFest and SP Fest (a year later) • Shibb’d 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
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
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 :)
What does the future hold? • Maturity (policy revisions, support models, VOs, etc) • Higher LoAs • More apps (and more important ones like grids) • Inter-federation (TIGRE, HAM-TMC, TDL, etc.)