Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user John Wunderlich

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user John Wunderlich

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

TimeItemWhoNotes

Start the meeting. Call to order, check a

John Wunderlich 

Called to order at 13:05

Quorum not achieved

Minutes to Approve:

10 min.Open Tasks Review

All

Task report
spacesPEMCP
labelsmeeting-notes

5 min.Draft Report Discussion

John Wunderlich 

  • Andreas asked about milestones and status of the Draft Implementors Report
  • John Wunderlich replied that we are resetting a draft for circulation pending receiving input on the Verifiers section from Andreas (waiting on internal approvals). The new target date for an integrated draft for the workgroup is  


Tasks:

20 min.Requirements Review

John Wunderlich

John Wunderlich is asking the group if anyone would like to step forward on an interim basis because both Andrew Hughes (the workgroup secretary) and Christopher Williams (the workgroup co-chair) are unable to attend the weekly meetings due to work constraints.

We had a process discussion to ensure that the workgroup keeps moving forward. There was consensus that the wide-ranging (and sometimes 'rat-holed' discussion on 404_AV_AC Contextually appropriate Verifier Identification was useful, but we don't want to do that for every requirement. The following resulted:

  • Workgroup members should use the comments section for each requirement to either:
    • indicate their support for the requirement where a simple +1 or "I agree" in the comment section would suffice; OR
    • Use the comment section to address issues in the requirement from their perspective, be they grammatical or substantive
  • It will be useful to have a gap analysis for each section of the report (Verifiers in this instance) to ensure that the privacy principles or fair information practices of ISO 29100 or Annex E are all addressed in that section. John Wunderlich will work up a way of reporting that and Tom Jones offered to assist.

With input from the members, we will try and put two requirements on the agenda for each meeting so the workgroup members can make their comments and prepare for the requirements to be addressed at each meeting.


Other Business

There was a brief discussion following up on last week's discussion about how much a verifier should say about themselves, which Tom Jones pointed out is as much an anti-spoofing issue as anything else. John Wunderlich pointed out that what is appropriate might be dependent on the 'disclosure context', and PeterD (Deactivated) pointed out that it may be dependent on 'purpose specification'. It was suggested that disclosure choice is based on what the "Holder" as individual chooses, whereas purpose specification cames from the "Verifier" and may be validated or interpreted by the "Holder Agent" before being presented to the "Holder".

5 min.Adjourn
13:40

Next meeting

 

Action items

  •   John Wunderlich to work on Privacy Principles v Requirements gap analysis