...
- 8 out of 14 voting members (quorum) for Minutes only
- 4 non voting members
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/Participant+Rost
2. Approve Minutes
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Meeting+-+2
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Minutes+-+2
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Meeting+-+2
Summary:
- Attendance of Bill Young in the middle of the call allowed us to establish the quorum.
- Colin moved to approve the three pending minutes to be approved per Joni's suggestion. Terry seconded.
- The three minutes were unanimously approved
...
6. eGov Profiles of OID and IC Project - next steps
Colin briefed his view on IMI. He showed some concerns that its had briefly reviewed OID and IMI profiles from the ICAM website and shared his initial thoughts on the call. He liked the consistency in structure between the docs. In IMI, he felt the use of SAML 1.1 token might restrict features Patricia mentioned British Colombia of functionality (e.g. metadata) and the use of a whitelist might not scale in an international context.
Patricia mentioned BC Canada was developing IMI for BC BC. There were some further work to be done, especially for higher level assurance.
Terry Mcbriede said there was informal discussion to solve such issues jointly between SAML, IMI and OID. Issue , since there was no standard way. We do not have real , and there is no complete solution at this moment while pilot is going on underway for OID. He was not concerned so much about the use of SAML 1.1 token because the products which supports support SAML 2.0 token usually handles handle 1.1 as well.
Fulup said still better to have 2.0 token if we have stringent and better interoperability.
Colin told us British Columbia of advised that the outcome of actions 2009-10-07-04 and 05 had found that BC Canada, Netherlands, and possibly part of the UK government are looking at OID or IMI 7) Quick updates:IMI.
Colin re-iterated his call for vendors to step up to take this work forward, firstly with a gap analaysis and then with a comparison analysis of the deployments once there were published profiles of deployments outside of the US.
7. LC and BoT Updates:
Note that RFI for Trust framework from OID foundation: Due was yesterday on December 1, 2009.
ARB is composed of six members
In response to Colin's proposal to have Interop Review Board is still getting established but has 6 members. Colin proposed a sync up with ARB, Brett suggested to think about scheduling, methodologies, etc for dialog after they have two meetings. This suggestion seemed consensus at the meeting. 10) an IRB representative before or latest on the next call. Brett suggested allowing the IRB some time to meet a couple of times and settle in. General agreement.
10. AOB
Due to the time constrains, Colin proposed to discuss agenda item 8 and9 in the mailing list, to which everybody agreed. Meeting (RSA @010 planning) vua email.
Meeting adjourned eight minutes past the hour.
>> * Skype: +9900827044630912
>> * US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022
>> * Room Code: 4630912
>> Relevant Links:
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/Participant+Rost
>> er
>>
>> [2]
>>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Meeting+-+2
>> 009-11-04
>>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Minutes+-+2
>> 009-10-07
>>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/eGov+Meeting+-+2
>> 009-09-15
>>
>> [3]
>>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/eGov/Action+Items+Sum
>> mary
Next Meeting
- Date: Day, Month Day#, Year# - To Be Advised
- Time: X PDT | X EDT | X UTC (Time Chart)
- Dial-In: \
- Code:
...