Page Comparison

...

• From Joni: Kantara would fit in the large and active attribute space in the following areas: Which attributes are necessary for attribute assurance, how they are used, how that use and best practice are assessed
• From Keith: Issues discussed: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/AMDG/Selected+Attribute+Management+Issues
  
  • Focus of the meeting was on the WG that attended (HIAWG, P3WG, IAWG) more than the Attribute Management DG
  • Note the particular challenges for an Attribute Management WG (from Keith's slides) : 
    
    • Problem #1: The players don’t feel the need for coordination
      Problem #2: My perceived “duplicated work” is your “invaluable forum for solving my unique problems’”
    • Summarizing: how would we even have jurisdiction? there was mixed feedback on whether we should go forward with a WG and/or whether we'd be successful
  • One other point made was that NSTIC would force some of this work and we should just wait for it (which sure doesn't take in to account the international point of view)
• (Andrew) what are the other groups actually doing? Should we consider really focusing on attributes that can be assured? do we tie this back to assessments and certification?
• (Keith) the most essential work could happen in the Identity Assurance WG and the P3WG, possibly more effectively than a separate Attribute Management WG
  
  • (Ken) out of the F2F saw this more as a problem of coordination, and that the AM DG/WG could be a forum for coordination in a way that does not exist elsewhere; not everyone has insight in to what's going on in OIX, ITU-T, and so on, so having this place would be helpful
  • (Keith) perhaps this is really a point to continue as a DG more than a WG, but the proof would be in whether or not the other groups will actually participate; some people may argue that this should happen in NSTIC but it may take NSTIC months to get there AND the US-focus rather than the international focus
• (Andrew) if we think of this as a demands-driven instead of a supply-driven problem, have the relying parties had a say in the attributes definitions?  (Keith) the point that RPs have been underrepresented has been made, which is ironic since they are the ones that need/consume the attributes
• Open question: what does this group want to be?  a DG is a place to hold coordination conversations with no specific output expected, but that will mean that the DG leadership does NOT have a vote (tho' they have a voice) on the Leadership Council; do we need to propose a different kind of group? Do we want/need that vote?  We are trying to assess how better to coordinate the acronym soup, and that assessment and recommendation is quite possibly better a WG thing
• (Sal) would need to modify the proposed charter to look to communication not solutions to the gaps we defined; (Keith) don't think coordination is achievable unless we have more committed participation from the alphabet soup of involved groups
• (Andrew) would this be something a masters' student could use as their thesis, to be part of the conversations and post the final results? Do we need to be part of all the discussions? (Ken) interesting for data gathering but it lacks the understanding of the space; taking the AMDG Repository is a start to all that
• One of the points to bring to the LC tomorrow is to gauge the interest for this kind of work; we're not getting to quorum now, is there enough interest to even have a liaison group?
  • What groups are we talking about that we'd like to have at the table?  ITU-T, OASIS, SCIM, ISOC, OIX-TE, InCommon, Safe-Biopharma, NSTIC, FICAM, Kantara Internal (IAWG, P3WG, HIAWG, Telecom and eGov) => producers or consumers of attributes

...