1 / 13

CALENDAR INTEROP UW's View on Objectives, Status & Obstacles

CALENDAR INTEROP UW's View on Objectives, Status & Obstacles. Terry Gray. 03 June 2010. MEETING OBJECTIVES. Shared view of current pain, opportunities, and challenges Brainstorming on options and Best Ways Forward Foundation for future progress. AGENDA. Introductions

fahim
Download Presentation

CALENDAR INTEROP UW's View on Objectives, Status & Obstacles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CALENDAR INTEROP UW's View on Objectives, Status & Obstacles Terry Gray 03 June 2010

  2. MEETING OBJECTIVES • Shared view of current pain, opportunities, and challenges • Brainstorming on options and Best Ways Forward • Foundation for future progress

  3. AGENDA • Introductions • Setting the Stage -Terry • Google Perspective -Chris • Microsoft Perspective -Paul • UW Perspectives -Erik, David, Brad • Update on CalConnect -Paul • Converging on Key Issues -All • Identifying Best Approaches -All

  4. THE PROBLEM Google Calendar User Outlook/ Exchange User IT Staff http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/images/vcvg20.jpg

  5. CONTEXT: Research Universities • Mission: discovery & innovation • Means: extreme collaboration • Globally, at scale • Culture: decentralized; diffuse authority • Collections of many independent businesses • A microcosm of “the Internet” http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/wiki1/images/4/4c/Collaboration.gif “Industry turns ideas into money; Universities turn money into ideas.” --Craig Hogan

  6. COLLABORATION VISION the illusion of simplicity and coherence! • Seamless & simple collaboration across multiple platforms & orgs • Cal/Scheduling “just works” • Doc sharing invitations “just work” • User & resource discovery is easy no matter where data is hosted. • Robust federation replaces “Multiple Account Madness”

  7. THE PLAYING FIELD UW Exchange Servers Microsoft Live@edu + BPOS Other cloud services UW SharePoint Servers Other universities Google Apps UW IMAP & Web Servers The IT challenge: make collaboration work in this context!

  8. CLASSES OF USERS (both MS & Google) • Within a given collaboration platform: • Full suite of apps • Basic email/cal services • Calendar only • Collaborator only • Across collaboration platforms • Entitled users • Invited collaborators (should not need local credentials)

  9. INTEROPERABILITY ELEMENTS • Access control to calendar data; account assumptions • Data format (e.g. iCal, .ics) • Transfer/Access protocol (e.g. CalDAV, Web Svcs API) • Autodiscover for authoritative data (per user, per group) • Client design re profiles, individual v. group context/domain • System-wide vs. per-user configuration

  10. IDEALLY • Exchange & Gcal users can be freely intermixed • At both department and individual level • Existing tools work the same for scheduling all users • Don't need accounts for everyone on each system • System admins can easily configure things for everyone • Delegation, Resources, and Recurring meetings work • Scheduling works across institutions, not just across depts • Don't need to keep an Outlook client running to sync • Solution works Live@edu, not just on-prem Exchange

  11. THINGS WE'VE TRIED • Google server-to-Outlook sync tool (deprecated) • Google server-to-server sync tool (permissions issues) • Google apps sync plugin for Outlook (separate Profile) • DIY Exchange web svcs to web page tool(s) • DIY One-way Google → Exchange sync tool

  12. KEY ISSUES • Is CalDAV still important (vs. Web Svcs APIs)? • Server-to-server vs. client-to-other-guy's-server approaches • Autodiscover vs. configured precedence lists • Account & access control assumptions • Client design assumptions (“native” vs. “foreign” users) • Scheduling resources (rooms) • Departmental domains vs. selective group access

  13. Lifting the fog at UW... DISCUSSION

More Related