John Bevilacqua, Mike Carter, Kent Cearley, John Culshaw, Burton Fox, Dave Goldhammer, Rani Machoi, Barbara Todd, Paula Vaughan

Dave Bodnar, David Wood

The group reviewed and agreed upon the list of applications proposed to be included in the early phases of the Directory Services project. Of the systems that will be further investigated for the possibility of including them in the early phases of the project:

• Diebold (Buff OneCard) will not be directory-enabling in the immediate future; when they do directory-enable, it will be on a more recent release than CU's.
• Libraries - miscellaneous info:
• Libraries is rewriting their patron load.
• They are also implementing a web-based circulation module but this shouldn't affect the Patron data.
• Vendor-based circulation materials are available to patrons based upon a valid range of IP addresses sent to the vendor by the Libraries.
• Be aware that library privileges need to be extended to all Colorado residents. For example, if pay for print is instituted, this would not be able to depend upon identikey which is limited to the campus community.
• When a non-CU affiliate requests a book loan, the Library asks for an SSN. The Patron may choose not to provide this information. If no SSN is offered, the Patron is set up with an ISO number only (which now appears only on the Buff OneCard stripe as there is no longer a barcode on the card).
• UMS's directory-based efforts involve investigating credential-based (API-enabled) access to directories, watching ITS' efforts and staying apprised of PeopleSoft's upcoming releases which propose using LDAP with their HR data.

• John Culshaw will check with other Innopac users at the upcoming user conference. (Johns Hopkins, one of the I2 Early Adopters, is an Innopac user.)
• Paula will check with Clarify re. directory-enabling capabilities.

The "big team" purpose was reviewed: to keep people who would be significantly impacted by the project informed of the project progress and to formally involve people who have skills/knowledge critical to the success of the project. "Team" is probably a misnomer as the "team" may never actually meet as a team; rather it is a collection of people who, individually, should be included in the project for various reasons and to various degrees.

The team reviewed the updated membership list and suggested the following additions: Lou McClelland (Research and Planning), John Culshaw (Libraries) and a Novell representative. (See Attachment 1 for the updated list.)

- Dave Bodnar: provide a name for the Novell rep. 3/24/00: name suggested; need to discuss.

- Kent: provide correct email addresses for the cusys people on the list

- PJV: figure out how to contact and convene the big team

• Organizational Structure and Geography (pjv).
  Directory usage is expected through all areas of the campus (as well as off campus). Because of this, server placement decisions should be based upon where the server would have the most operational support and the most secure environment. (The current dns servers are located in Telecomm, Engineering and the Computing Center.)
• Computer Systems (Bodnar):
  Dave was unable to attend the meeting, but forwarded information shortly afterwards. See Attachment 2.
• Network Map (dcmwood):
  Copies of the network maps were distributed. The color versions are available at http://www.colorado.edu/ITS/Networking/Backbone
  The network discussion brought out the following items for consideration:
• Directory lookups will have a greater impact on the server (and be more dependent upon server performance) whereas the processes that populate the directory would be more dependent on the network for performance.
• We should consider whether or not we should refer from the directory database to other databases for data.
• We have no enterprise-wide firewalls.
• Application Software (Burton/pjv):
  A brief writeup was distributed. (Updated version is included here as Attachment 3.)
  The list of most popular and most critical systems closely mirror both eachother and the list of systems targeted for early directory-enablement.
• Users (Carter)
  Carter distributed numbers re. the source of our current usage (see Attachment 4). This document led to further info tidbits:
  - Weekdays experience 11,000-13,000 hits per day;
  - 88% of the directory hits are from the web;
  - The vast majority of staff and POP/IMAP hits are from a CU IP;
  - Surprisingly, 36% of the student telnet is from a non-CU IP.
• Political Climate (pjv):
  Boulder hierarchies are aware and supportive of the directory project. The biggest political issue will probably be the Boulder vs. four-campus issue. This will heat up as the project moves into specifics.
• Resources (pjv):
  Project life span is still an unknown. Many projects are hoping for the completion of this project in order to build upon for their projects. However, this project has some fairly time-consumptive tasks ahead (data analysis, RFP for the directory server and software, application directory-enablement, etc.).
  Some members of the core team can expect to be spending a fair amount of time with this project as the design and implementation phases heat up. Member of the "Big Team" should not expect a very heavy time demand.
  Post-implementation will also require resources in the form of system administration, directories coordination and further application directory-enablement.
  Budget is also still up in the air. However, we should be continue to identify line items which will eventually figure into the total cost of the system.