UMA telecon 2013-12-19
...
- Roll call
- Action item review
- RSR challenge for attributes and attribute bundles
- Interop feature test work
- Healthcare use case status
- AOB
Minutes
Roll call
tbsQuorum was reached.
Action item review
Mark is still working on his AI: "Propose spec text around "option 3" for AS=C, exploring the potential for turning off some MUSTs around the requirement for AS and C to communicate through HTTP API endpoints."
...
So, looking at Roland's example one more time, other than our advice not to pass attribute values, we don't yet had any further feedback on the design (that is, it's a viable approach as far as we can tell right now). More to come, though.
Interop feature test work
Eve would like to use the UMA-dev list for interop planning and discussion. She'll remind the wg-uma list once again how to sign up for it.
...
This makes Eve think about our conversation above: An RS could mark resource sets as having types (or sensitivity levels) that can flow through to the AS, enabling policies to be created along sensitivity or type lines and enabling interesting dashboard readings for privacy levels (e.g., "You granted access to these n highly sensitive items to x jurisdictions worldwide"). Domenico did some work around privacy-primary views and capabilities – see the "access analytics UX" wireframes here. Also see his "trust model user guide" here. The Privacy Manager work that's going on concurrently with Scalable Privacy may find our UX wireframes interesting.
Ultimately, how much distinction is there, really, between scopes and resource sets? Wouldn't Roland's "scopes" (which amount to individual attributes) want to have the option of sensitivity levels too? The reason for our resource set/scope split was extreme "RESTful" thinking. But couldn't the JSON format of scope descriptions accommodate sensitivity levels and types as easily as the resource level?
We'll keep working on this.
Attendees
As of 19 December 2013 (pre-meeting), quorum is 7 of 12. (We discovered that Mark's participation was incorrectly recorded all this time as "non-voting", so we switched him prior to the call start, but did not attempt to fix prior incorrect records.)
...
- Nat
- Mark
Regrets:
- Maciej
- Lukasz
Next Meetings
- No meeting Thu Dec 26 (holidays)
- Focus meeting Thu Jan 2 8:30-10am PT (time chart)
- Focus meeting Thu Jan 9 8:30-10am PT (time chart)
- Focus meeting Thu Jan 16 8:30-10am PT (time chart)
- Focus meeting Thu Jan 23 8:30-10am PT (time chart)
- All-hands meeting Thu Jan 30 8:30-10am PT (time chart)