...
- The structure and components of the IAF can be distilled into a higher-level set of objects, processes and relationships which can define a Generic Assurance Framework (GAF), of which the IAF would be a prime example. The GAF would be the model for other assurance frameworks, e.g. A(ttribute) AF, P(rivacy) AF, …
Approach:
- The IAWG would need to look at the attribute assurance framework and build up to the GAF. This action should be added to the roadmap.
Resources:
- Patrick Curry and Rich Furr have interest and ability to assist but cannot lead the effort. Richard Wilsher could champion the work with funding.
- ACTION ITEM 20110427-01 GAF Funding effort:
- MYISHA will elevate the conversation of funding the GAF effort to the LC
- Patrick will reach out to the EU Commission for funding. (He suggests the European Commission / Counter-fraud A2 Expert Group on Identity Fraud and Identity Management could lend financial support, but will need someone in the US gov't to suggest that this is in the interest of transatlantic communities.)
- Ben Wilson will reach out to the OnLine Trust Alliance as a path toward Peter Alterman and NSTIC support of the GAF effort.
- Richard Wilsher will draft a statement qualifying the GAF effort as an essential component of an assurance framework: What is the activity? Why would it benefit the international community. What is the deliverable?
Action Item Review:
- ACTION ITEM 20110330-01 : Expiring Credentials Language update. Resource needed.
- ACTION ITEM 20110406-01 RICHARD : GAF draft language. Progressed.
- ACTION ITEM 20110413-01 ANNA will implement non-normative editorial changes proposed by Colin Wallis to the SAC Profiling Guidance doc and highlight those in a separate draft to the IAWG. Any substantive changes will be reviewed by the IAWG to determine their validity and whether to take immediate action or slate them for a future cycle. Progressed.
2. Berlin F2F Meeting Agenda
- This discussion will be taken to the list.
3. IAWG response to the SE feedback on the SACs — Richard Wisher
- There is a need for clarification from the authors of the Swedish feedback to the SACs.
- verify that the comments were made against PDF version 0.9
- quote the criterion reference and line numbers
- With this, the IAWG will be able to confirm that the comments are, indeed, against the proper assumptions and provide a response. Otherwise, an invite may be extended to attend the next IAWG telecom for further discussion/clarification.
4. SAC Profile Guidance Doc (Collin Wallis’ Feedback)
- Comments have been pushed to the list for a response.
5. AOB
- None