Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Amanda

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Amanda

Saved on

Key

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

...

  1. IAWG Actions/Reminders/Updates:

    • Proposed Meeting Cadence for June/Extended Summer

      • June 13, June 27

      • July 11, July 25

      • August 8, August 22

    • Informal poll from LC to determine overall use of AI in report/content generation (goal is to decide whether a policy is needed)

      • "Have you used Chat-gpt or other AI tools to help generate or contribute to any group content or reports?"

    • Eballot Results 

      • 8 votes total - 1 ineligible vote (cast by nonmember) = 7 total votes (out of 9)

        1. Quorum was achieved

        2. Question 1: 6 approve, 1 disapprove

          1. 7 votes

        3. Question 2: 5 approve, 1 disapprove

          1. 6 votes

          2. 1 additional person skipped this question

      • Update on next steps

    • Address of Record update:

      • Address of Record–(most recent version from February 8th with ARB Comment); response in progress

  2. ISO 17065 Discussion Items

  3. Group Discussion:  

    • Potential Criteria Updates

      • Discussion: re: 63B#1340, 63A#0130 b) (Jimmy Jung’s email on May 28th),  and  63B#0120. Led by Jimmy.

    • NIST's 63B Supplement for Syncable Authenticators 

      • Initial discussion to determine if any criteria need changing

    • ARB comment on potential bug in 63A#0510 criteria (Lynzie)

      • Talks about biometric performance requirements which is more about measuring algorithmic performance and not human performance. If using a human, this cannot be done.

      • #0510 references 63B authentication criteria and authentication doesn’t recognize human verification of the biometric against some portrait or reference biometric. The 63B criteria is only applicable to automated biometric systems.

  4. Any Other Business

...

\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

Eballot results and update on next steps

  1. Getting strong pushback from Kay and ARB regarding what happens next–Andrew Hughes in negotiations.

  2. SPS with TrustMarks-design their services as they work/plan per market demands, customer needs, etc.

  3. Kantara’s criteria is designed around NIST 800-63-3

Tabled for future

  • Getting strong pushback from Kay and ARB regarding what happens next–Andrew Hughes in negotiations.

  • SPS with TrustMarks-design their services as they work/plan per market demands, customer needs, etc.

    • Kantara’s criteria is designed around NIST 800-63-

    • Initial discussion to determine if any criteria need changing

    • Roger: what is Kantara’s perspective?

    • 4 pieces of criteria-don’t allow cloning (Jimmy)-and passkeys allow cloning

    • Supplement implies that there are things (shall statements) to do, but they don’t provide them  - not clear what to do with it

    • Letting those 4 criteria go would be a material change (or somehow note that this can be waived base don supplement)

    • Then based on that supplement-are there other things that need changing/updating and adjust criteria

    • Supplement establish a new authenticator?

      • Addresses inhibitions on multi-factor crypto that were drafted when they drafted rev 3

    Eballot results and update on next steps

      • 3

    ✅ Open Action items

    •  
    Info

    Action items may be created inline on any page. This block shows all open action items from all meeting notes.

    ...