Multi-Campus Middleware: Technical and Organizational Dimensions A. Michael Berman, Cal Poly Pomona...
-
Upload
bertina-hodge -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Multi-Campus Middleware: Technical and Organizational Dimensions A. Michael Berman, Cal Poly Pomona...
Multi-Campus Middleware: Technical and Organizational Dimensions
A. Michael Berman, Cal Poly Pomona
Mark Crase, CSU Office of the Chancellor
Kent McKinney, CSU Hayward
Copyright A. Michael Berman, Mark Crase, and Kent McKinney, 2002. 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
• California State University: background, strategy, drivers
• A grass roots experiment: the Directories Working Group
• Developing an Institutional Response
First, some background…
The California State University
• 23 Campuses• 1 R2 Research • 21 4-year Comprehensive• California Maritime Academy
• 350,000 Students
• 80,000 Faculty and Staff
Integrated Technology Strategy
• In 1993, 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
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
• Technology
Prerequisites
Outcomes
Initiatives
SupportTraining
Access
Net
wor
k
Har
dwar
e
Sof
twar
e
Initiatives / Projects
Dis
trib
uted
Lea
rn. &
Tea
ch.
Mul
timed
ia R
epos
itory
Libr
ary
Res
ourc
es
Student Friendly S
ervices
Com
mon. M
gt. System
s
Stream
line I/T Delivery
Procurem
ent Process Im
provement
One C
ard
Access Infrastructure Initiative
Cen
ters
for
Inst
. Tec
h. D
evel
op.
• Optimal Personal Productivity
• Excellence in Learning and Teaching
• Quality of Student Experience
• Administrative Productivity and Quality
Baseline Training & User Support Infrastructure
ITS FRAMEWORK
FULL
BASELINE
CURRENT
Institutional 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
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.
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
SupportTraining
Net
wor
k
Har
dwar
e
Sof
twar
e
Access Infrastructure Initiative Baseline Training & User Support Infrastructure
Middleware
ServiceOutcomes
InitiativeApplications
The position of Middleware in the ITS Pyramid when viewed through the technology.
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
• Improve integration with other education institutions (e.g. EDUCAUSE, Internet2, etc.)
California State University Directories Working Group
Technical Working Group charged by CSU system wide CIO’s to develop
an Enterprise Directories strategy and test bed implementation
Group Dynamics
• 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
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
Key Recommendations
• Federated directory approach
• Common view incorporating eduPerson
• LDAP architecture
• Unique ID (unique vs. Linking)
• Internet2 involvement
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)
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)
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
Final Recommendations• 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• Will depend on projected system wide uses
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
From Experiment to Institutional Response
• First Step: Middleware presented to the CSU Executive Council• Executive Council is 23 Presidents +
Chancellor• 2/3 receive Middleware briefing in February• Consensus: “We’re not sure what it is, but
if this is what we need, let’s do it.”
“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…
Result: Middleware Steering Committee Formed
• Charged by CSU CIO, David Ernst• CIO’s from multiple campus, CSU
auditor• Asked to “come up with a plan” for
Middleware for CSU• Formed in May 2002, report due in
October 2002
Highlights of Draft Recommendations
• Organized into three phases• January 2003 – June 2003• July 2003 – December 2003• January 2004 – December 2004
Phase One: Jan 2003 – June 2003
• Establish CSU Middleware Policy Board, reporting to TSC of Presidents
• Create initial policies• 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.
Phase One: Jan 2003 – June 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
Phase One: Jan 2003 – June 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)
Phase Two:July 2003 – December 2003
• 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 (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
Phase Three:January 2004 – December 2004
• 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.
Reaction within CSU
• CIO’s – very supportive – “we need to do this”
• Initial response from Library, ERP initiative has been positive
• Challenge to find resources in tight budget environment