Skip to Content

ITPG Meeting 2009-09-17

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
September 17, 2009 - 9:00am - 11:00am
Cheadle 5123

Administrative Items

  1. Minutes of August 17th meeting posted on 8/18/09.

Informational Items

  1. Member Announcements
  2. CIO Report - Tom Putnam
  3. CISO Report - Karl Heins
  4. Subcommittee Reports
    1. Backbone Engineering Group (BEG)
    2. Security Working Group (SEC-WG)
    3. Web Standards and Content Working Group (WSG)
    4. ITPG Communications
    5. Others
  5. Liaison Reports
    1. Information Technology Board (ITB) – Bruce Miller
    2. Academic Technology Planning Group (ATPG) – Alan Moses
    3. Enterprise Information Systems Planning Group (EISPG) – Deborah Scott
    4. Cyber Infrastructure

Action Items

  1. None

Discussion Items

  1. Report on New Student Information System Acquisition (Project SAIL) – Deborah Scott
  2. Report on Changes to Campus Wiring Standards – Elise Meyer
  3. Discussion of Disposition of Dormant Subcommittees

Call for Agenda Items

Upcoming Items

  1. October – Campus Calendaring Issues/Futures – Jamie Sonsini
  2. October – UCSB Learning Center & UCSB Alert Update – Mark McGilvrayi

Present: Arlene Allen, Kip Bates, David Bosso, Polly Bustillos, Ted Cabeen, Michael Colee, Ken Dean, Doug Drury, Ann Dundon, Kirk Grier, Chuck Haines, Karl Heins, Richard Kip, Tom Lawton, Aaron Martin, Mark McGilvray, Elise Meyer, Steve Miley, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Mike Oliva, Tom Putnam, Hank Ratzesberger, Glenn Schiferl, Kevin Schmidt, Deborah Scott, Brian Stewart, Heidi Straub, Colin Thompson, Paul Weakliem, Jim Woods.

Administrative Items

Minutes of the August 17, 2009 ITPG meeting, posted on 8/18/09, were approved with emailed corrections.

There was a brief ceremony when Bruce presented outgoing ITPG co-chairs Arlene Allen (2003-2009) and Elise Meyer (1998-2009) with plaques, and both he and the EVC thanked them for their service.

Informational Items

Economics (Mike Oliva): They are going through a website transition and upgrades to their servers. In addition it was noted that if your customers download a lot of journals from the Library’s electronic resources, that may generate a report of excessive downloading that needs to be investigated. (Kevin Schmidt noted that excessive downloads are often madevia stolen credentials, which was not the case for the Economics activity.)

Institutional Advancement (Polly Bustillos): They are preparing to be relocated from off campus, at HRC, to on campus in Phelps.

Computer Science (Richard Kip): Getting ready for Fall.

ICESS & Crustal Studies (Mike Colee and Aaron Martin): These two ORU’s are merging into one. They will continue to occupy space in both Givertz and Ellison, but they will be reorganizing what is located where

Electrical & Computer Engineering (Ken Dean): They are dealing with the shrinking budget situation. They are also building a new lab for Computer Engineering.

LSIT (David Bosso): They are addressing the issues that come from moving into the new Social Sciences and Media Studies Building (SSMS), including network construction issues.

Physics (Glenn Schiferl): They are setting up the new post docs and graduate students that are starting this Fall.

Office of Information Technology (Kevin Schmidt): There has been broader announcement of the availability of the VPN 64-bit client. So far, no one has reported any issues.

Special Projects (Mark McGilvray): They are upgrading the software version for the Learning Center. They still plan to go live in January 2010. They are currently testing how to include non-UC employees in the system, e.g., students who are taking EH&S training courses. Additionally, UCSB Alert is now capturing student cell phone numbers from the Registrar’s system, so participation is now opt-out.

Housing & Residential Services (Chuck Haines): They are bracing for 5,000 students moving in this coming weekend. There will be a lot of triples this year.

Information Systems & Computing (Arlene Allen): Campus mainframe processing moved up to UCOP a couple of weeks ago. They are now focusing on the structure of their organization, including what services will end up where.

Student Affairs (Deborah Scott): They are trying to keep Student Affairs operating while most resources go to Project SAIL.

Information Systems & Computing (Kirk Grier): Campus mainframe services moved up to UCOP over the weekend of August 23. Some expected problems occurred, e.g., ftp firewalls. They will be watching the load this quarter. So far, there haven’t been any latency issues except for FTP extracts, which they believe are caused by network security settings. Their UCOP environment will be upgraded from version 1.5 to version 1.8 to match the new UCOP mainframe. Their printing services are slated to make progress with their parallel pdf generation. For the Identity Management service, the activation screens are now in prototype.

LSIT (Alan Moses): The LSIT team will now be located in the same space. The Social Sciences Computing Facility (SSCF) has now been relocated to SSMS. He hopes to be able to report on the College of Letters & Sciences IT Instructional Enhancement fee at our next meeting.

Office of Information Technology (Elise Meyer): Work is progressing on a radio link from the roof of Santa Catalina (formerly known as Francisco Torres) to the roof of a building in New West Campus (formerly known as Devereux) to provide backbone network connectivity to NWC. The plan is then to use copper phone cable and VDSL modems to provide networking to some buildings on NWC.

Communications Services (Bruce Miller): There were problems with the Message Waiting Indicator (MWI) service on Wednesday (9/16) afternoon due to internal server reorganizations.

CIO Report
Tom Putnam

Tom announced that the proposed RUAC, IP Address fee for this fiscal year was to remain at $11. This fee helps pay for some of the centrally provided network and security service costs. Last year there was a proposal to increase the RUAC fee to pay for new security costs. This year the proposal includes cost savings to keep the rate the same. These cost savings include: furloughs, eliminating a position, reduced security tools, and cutting down what we plan to do this year. The proposed expenses and income result in a loss, so the proposal includes using one third of the reserves to help subsidize the rate. Tom sent a cover memo on the RUAC proposal (doc) to the ITPG which is the first step in a campus consultation process. The memo includes a link to a detailed FAQ on the fee.

There was a question about the status of the FTE fee. OIST will develop an FTE fee proposal for consultation following the conclusion of the RUAC fee proposal. We expect discussion for that fee to take longer. Issues that need to be addressed include determining the impact of a change from the RUAC, IP address fee that can be paid at the control point level, with an FTE fee that occurs monthly at the payroll source. It was advised to start that consultation as soon as possible since departments were aggressively looking at their budgets for next year.

The ITPG will discuss the proposed RUAC, IP Address fee at our October meeting, which occurs prior to the feedback deadline of October 16.

An email survey completed recently showed that about 20% of the universities responding have switched their student email services to Gmail, but only about .2% (including Stanford and the University of Minnesota) have done so for faculty and staff email service. If UCSB were to do the same, it would be much more efficient to do so on a campus-wide rather than department-by-department basis, because the latter would require setting up separate domains for each department.

There has been some discussion of amending the UC charter to create a student technology fee structure.

The project for upgrading the campus backbone to 10GB/s is moving forward. Kevin Schmidt added that the existing 1GB border links will need to be reorganized in anticipation of the backbone upgrade.

CISO Report
Karl Heins

Last month the campus completed a survey of the use of Social Security Numbers and it was discovered that 50% of the reporting departments are using SSNs for legitimate business purposes.

The campus needs to complete the annual Risk Self-Assessment in which we evaluate our compliance level with IS-3, and we document what controls we have in place. Karl is testing a new form with some pilot departments. Our response is due to UCOP by the end of January/beginning of February 2010.

Karl and Ann Dundon have been working on an online tutorial to provide security training for staff. Karl and Elise Meyer will provide the narration. The training will be delivered throughand documented in SumTotal (i.e., the UC Learning Center).

The larger picture: The state legislature passed 2 more breach laws, which impact the specifics that need to be reported. Information Security is an active UCOP discussion. A letter is being developed to discuss SSN use and protection.

Subcommittee Reports

Backbone Engineering Group (BEG)
Glenn Schiferl

The discussion is beginning on the 10 Gbps upgrade project and its impact on campus infrastructure. This will continue to be discussed at future meetings.

The BEG completed their review of the draft standards document created by Plannet. Glenn and Elise Meyer presented our changes to the consultant on August 31. The consultant needs to incorporate our changes into the draft document and circulate it for review within Plannet. Then we will receive a final draft which will be brought to the ITPG for approval. A detailed report of the change highlights is a later agenda item.

Security Working Group (SEC-WG)
Karl Heins

There was a vigorous discussion at the last meeting regarding potential security tools to be funded by the RUAC, IP Address fee. The tools discussed were:

  • Staff training
  • Scanning software to identify SSNs on desktops and other devices. (Often the SSNs get buried or forgotten.) One of the issues with use of this tool is the ECP which has severe restrictions about what one can do to another’s machine.
  • Encryption software – the largest loss of sensitive data is to the theft of laptops and desktops. If the data on the stolen device is encrypted, no notification needs to be made, however if the data is not encrypted, notification must be made.


The above three items are currently included in the draft RUAC, IP Address fee proposal. Input is needed to determine the appropriate tools to be funded. Additional tools to be considered are:

  • Web application scanning software. The most recent breaches involve SQL injection to gain access to sensitive information.
  • Forensic tools. These are used to determine how and to what extent a system was compromised/sensitive information accessed, or to secure evidence.
  • Centralized logging. If one is logging the correct information and it’s being maintained in a secure location, then if there is a breach, one can use these logs to help determine whether sensitive information was accessed or not, and thus whether there is a need for notification or not.
  • Laptop phone home software. When a stolen laptop that has this software is connected to the Internet it will contact the phone-home company with its location. There is a recovery rate for laptops that have this software.


The Security Working Group vigorously discussed, but did not rank, these items. In addition, other ideas are being considered. The next Security Working Group meeting is Thursday 9/24, 10 a.m. – noon in Broida 3302.

Web Standards and Content Working Group (WSG)
Hank Ratzesberger

The WSG has put on some very successful workshops for the Web developer community, and they were looking for some funding to continue their efforts. They were advised to submit a proposal to the OIST for funding, and it was approved. They are now looking for possible presenters for the theme of Web Application Security.

ITPG Communications
Ann Dundon

The group met and developed a draft charter. The proposed purpose of this subcommittee is as follows.

The ITPG Communications Subcommittee provides guidance to the ITPG to maximize collaboration and communication among ITPG members, ITPG subcommittees, and the communities they serve.

The proposed goals of this subcommittee are:

  1. Develop guidelines to maximize the effectiveness of the communications and collaboration between subcommittees and the ITPG. These guidelines would encourage standards for the production and sharing of agendas, minutes, working papers, and final reports.
  2. Provide guidance and assistance in the development of a technology framework which may be used by ITPG members and subcommittees for collaborating on and publishing minutes, agendas, whitepapers, standards, discussions, and other efforts.
  3. Serve as a focal point for the collection of user requirements for collaboration tools to be used by the ITPG.


The ITPG agreed that this purpose and these goals were necessary and sufficient for this subcommittee.

Liaison Reports

Information Technology Board (ITB)
Bruce Miller

The ITPG was already aware of the items that were discussed at the ITB.

Academic Technology Planning Group (ATPG)
Alan Moses

Efforts are underway to schedule the Fall meeting for this group, which is chaired by Pierre Wiltzius, Dean of Mathematical, Life, and Physical Sciences.

Enterprise Information Systems Planning Group (EISPG)
Deborah Scott

The next meeting for this group is October 1. The EVC asked Deborah if she would chair this planning group now that Betty Huff has left the University.

Cyber Infrastructure

Arlene Allen, Paul Weakliem, and Jeffrey Barteet are putting together materials on data center governance.

Action Items


Discussion Items

Report on New Student Information System Acquisition (Project SAIL)
Deborah Scott

Deborah presented a powerpoint on Project SAIL (pdf). (NB: Notes from the ITPG meeting were supplemented in some cases by information presented the next day during the same presentation at the ITB meeting.) Highlights from the presentation follow.

  • The primary focus of this project is Admissions and Student Records & Registration. This scope does require some work to be done on Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence, Academic Advising, and Student Portal.
  • The software comes with more functionality than is being implemented. Student, faculty, and staff licenses have only been purchased to accommodate this narrow scope. If, however, after completing the implementation of the primary goals, additional functionality is implemented, then additional licenses can be purchased.
  • The current schedule has Admissions going live in Fall 2011, and Student Records & Registration going live in Spring 2012.
  • Currently there are over 60 people across campus involved in this project. In a year, they’ll need volunteers to test the software.
  • One factor for success will be their ability to freeze system modifications for the current system. They need to address three changes that are currently planned to occur in parallel to Project SAIL (these specific notes came from the 9/18 ITB presentation). The three changes are: 1) the Federally mandated SEVIS 2 that is due Fall 2010, 2) the new UCOP ApplyUC in November 2010 for Fall 2011, and 3) Financial Aid system changes potentially for September 2010.
  • The new system will run on HP blade servers running Microsoft Windows with SQL Server providing the database. Several large educational institutions are running with the same hardware, and they are in the process of benchmarking the hardware.
  • The purchased software also includes both HR and Financial Information Systems, but additional user licenses would need to be purchased to actually run those.
  • During the upcoming blueprinting process (which is creating a blueprint plan for all data, process, and configuration information needed to configure the system), it will be determined whether the existing Egrades, AAA, and Gold systems will be re-integrated into the new SIS.
  • When asked whether the existing systems modifications freeze would impact Gauchospace development, the answer given was that Student Affairs would continue to support Gauchospace data interface needs to the best of their ability.

The ITPG wished Student Affairs good luck with this project.

Report on Changes to Campus Wiring Standards
Elise Meyer

The detailed language of the major proposed changes (doc) to the standard was presented to the group. (NB: An executive summary (doc) of these changes was presented to the ITB the next day.)

The group wanted to know what the budget impacts were for the change from Cat 5e (1Gbps-capable) copper cabling to Cat 6a (10Gbps-capable) copper cabling. It was reported that the materials difference was 35% and that the infrastructure (cable trays and conduits) cost was negligible to accommodate the fatter Cat 6a cables. Labor for installations done a few years ago was higher due to not being able to pull three 6a cables at the same time. (NB: In June 2009 we asked three vendors for the materials cost for a Cat 6a installation. Taking the average of the three responses, the Cat 5e cost was $143.43 per drop, and the Cat 6a cost was $491.70 per drop. Labor costs are currently estimated to be 5-10% higher for a Cat 6a installation.)

Discussion of Disposition of Dormant Subcommittees

Postponed to a later meeting.

Call for Agenda Items

The RUAC, IP Address fee will be discussed at the next meeting.

There will be a future presentation on Espresso, and there will be a re-emergence of the campus discussion of Identity Management, perhaps in November.

Upcoming Items

  • October: Campus Calendaring Issues/Futures (Jamie Sonsini)
  • October: UCSB Learning Center and UCSB Alert Update (Mark McGilvray)

Other Business

One Last Update (Kevin Schmidt): We now have functioning 10Gbps cards connecting our two border routers. Late tonight/early tomorrow CENIC will be moving all LA HPR connections from the old Cisco routers to new Foundry/Brocade routers. This is a necessary step before our campus HPR connection to LA is upgraded to 10Gbps.