Present: Arlene Allen, Todd Atkins, Kevin Barron, Art Battson, Eric
Brody, Ken Bowers, Bill Doering, Chuck Haines, Phil Handley, Gail Johnson,
Rick Johnson, Bill Koseluk, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Larry Murdock, Kevin
Schmidt, Vince Sefcik, Jamie Sonsini, Paul Valenzuela, John Vasi, Karen
Not Present: Debbie Anglin, George Gregg, Tom Lawton, Tom Marazita,
Ed Mehlschau, Stan Nicholson, Deborah Scott
BEG surfaced the question of remote locations that are treated as part
of campus. A successful wireless link to Santa Cruz Island was reported.
The Wiring Standards Group (WSG) reported that a draft of the new standards
has been completed and will soon be put on the web. Types of wire
and budgeting for new buildings were also topics of discussion.
A question of where the standards draft should
go next was raised (BEG or ITPG?). Responses to the letter to Deans,
et al. from those who believe their intrabuilding wiring is below standard
have been forwarded to the chairs of the BEG and
will be forwarded to the members of the WSG. BEG is to schedule a
meeting to review the NGB RFP before it can be sent out.
Another document showing ways to make initial estimates of wiring costs was in draft at the time of the meeting, but
now has been published on the CommServ website.
Questions regarding the GTE/UCSB ISP contract were answered as follows:
- Current customers may continue using the service at the $15.45 rate
until December 13, 2000.
- Composite (departmental) billing for current customers may continue
beyond that date if desired.
- GTE.net will send email to each customer regarding price/service
- Service beyond 12/13 will cost $19.95 with a 150 hour threshold,
above which the cost will be $1.00 per hour.
- The ISP service comes with one GTE.net mailbox additional mailboxes
may be purchased.
- Help Desk services for composite billing accounts will continue
as they are today.
Cox@home is reported to have given up trying to implement composite
billing to campus customers. Training reps and difficulty of modifying
the billing program were the reasons given.
A mailing list has been created for the on-campus
distribution of Gartner Group email newsletters. The list is called
email@example.com, and may be subscribed to via an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with "subscribe" as the subject.
Results of the ITB Faculty Survey were distributed and discussed.
282 surveys were returned (25%). The Student Survey results are in
process. Doing surveys yearly would strain the resources available
to compile the results. The possibility of designing a Scantron survey
to ease the compilation process was offered. However, the comments
received in the "other" categories are very rich in content and would be
lost. Comments and questions regarding the survey may be sent to
the ITPG discussion list.
Todd Atkins (email@example.com) was introduced
as the new Campus Security Coordinator (this
new position should not be confused with the Electronic Information Security
Guidelines Coordinator appointed under IS-3, Glenn Davis, or the Security
Programmer in IS&C, Terry Malosh (firstname.lastname@example.org)). It
was noted that system administrators might notice probes coming from an
OIT Security Group machine (security.oit.ucsb.edu).
The Auth/Dir group reported that the schema for inclusion of students
in the LDAP directory is in draft. Fields for department and separation
date are also going in at the same time. The question of how long
after the end of a quarter we keep a student in the directory was raised.
Web applications to be used for registration and personal data maintenance
are in test . Production deployment will be in https on AIX before
the end of July. We currently have a license for 11,000 entries.
We need to increase this to 25,000. (Note:
Costs were verified at Directory Server License = $.70/user and Subscription
and Support = $.18/user, for a first year cost of $12,320, with subsequent
year costs of $2,520/year.)
It was noted that Congress might disallow use of SSN as a primary field.
That will not be a problem for the LDAP because UCSBCAMPUSID is the key
Auth/Dir will meet on the third Thursday of each month to discuss items
too lengthy or involved for the regular first Thursday meetings. Items
on the agenda for July are portals and Housing's interest in Active Directory/WIN
The public version of LDAP will go into production by the end of July.
DECAF reported that workstation
recommendations will be published on the web by the end of the month.
A section on how to buy a recommended workstation from the UCSB Bookstore
might be added to the document. Departments that have "superset"
standards are also invited to provide links for specific majors.
Links to Housing's recommendations to residents might also be provided
on the same page.
DECAF is also trying to define data elements that all departments might
agree upon using. About 20 common data elements are under consideration.
The Portal Issue surfaced in discussions of making services more easily
accessed by students. Groups are at work trying to define the desired
contents of student and auxiliary portals. Single sign-on is highly
desirable. Thus, the portal discussion raises authentication issues
from the beginning. (Note, there will be a presentation
of iCollege's portal offering on Tuesday, August 15, 1:30-2:30 p.m.
in the UCen State Street Room.)
Plans to eventually migrate away from use of Perm/PIN for access to
student services were surfaced. Some thought that the migration might
take 20 years to accomplish. The Registrar's office was reported
to be willing to increase the length of the PIN by two characters in the
The Wireless Scouting Party is drafting a document for distribution
at the August ITPG meeting.
The major discussion item for the meeting was a proposed procedure for
guidance of new intrabuilding wiring projects now that the OIT is in place.
After some discussion, the steps on the white board were:
- Sanity Check by WSG
- Rough (formula based) cost estimate by WSG
- Preliminary prioritization:
- technical consideration by BEG
- program (need) consideration by ITPG
- Determine whether other work is being done in the building by
coordinating with BAP, CPC and FM.
- Design, with input from OIT, occupants, FM.
- Marketing and communications of benefits
by those in early phases
- Formal cost estimate by OIT (might require RFQ)
- Final priority negotiation with consideration of "surge" issues
presented to ITPG by OIT
- Review with customers
- Repeat process yearly
It was noted that new grants and research projects would preempt the
process and reset priorities regularly, even during the implementation
The Campus Planning Committee (CPC) now
does "periodic divisional reviews." These could include the coordination
indicated in 5 above.
The question of whether building occupants or some central authority
(OIT?) would drive the wiring process was raised. The notion that
a central unit could drive provision of basic data services using the model
of telephone lines and electrical service without much coordination with
customers was discussed.
It was suggested that the (future) OIT web page should include links
to specific project pages showing status.
The next meeting of ITPG is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, August
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule