CALENDAR INTEROP

UW's View on Objectives, Status & Obstacles

03 June 2010 Terry Gray

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

4http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/images/vcvg20.jpg

THE PROBLEM

Outlook/ExchangeUser IT

Staff

GoogleCalendar

User

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”

“Industry turns ideas into money; Universities turn money into ideas.” --Craig Hogan

http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/wiki1/im

ages/4/4c/Collaboration.gif

6

COLLABORATION VISION

• 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”

the illusion of simplicity and coherence!

7

THE PLAYING FIELD

MicrosoftLive@edu+ BPOS

GoogleApps

UWExchangeServers

UWSharePoint

Servers

UWIMAP & Web

Servers

Other cloudservices

The IT challenge: make collaboration work in this context!

Otheruniversities

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

DISCUSSION

Lifting the fog at UW...