Attendees:
...
- Ken asks for comments on draft response. Summarizes our fairly general comments.
- Ken asks for specific examples of inconsistent terminology.
- Colin: thought the DCMS document was light, but not bad. They do lack refs to public standards, references to sources of content, cross-recognition
- Ken generally agrees that document is not bad for this stage
- Roger Quint asks if cross-recognition is not implicit; there is a ref to 17065, but Ken says goal and process for cross-recognition and certification process still ought to be more explicit.
- Ken will capture today's comments and figure out how to get them in the required comment format. Will circulate to list in 1-2 days for comments; due on May 7th so hope to finalize before next meeting.
Review and Comment: NIST open discussion issues in light of SP 800-63 rev.4
- Ken: any further thoughts from this group? Comments due in May.
- Eric can't access Google doc, requests Ken pull up the document under discussion.
- Colin asks about IAL1 (or IAL1-plus) requirement. Adam Cooper says this is in demand, especially in government.
- Mark Hapner mentions what US IRS is doing to enhance ID verification. Separate channel (postal letter) and
- Adam C. – examples of IAL use cases. Colin adds – useful as a "starter" level especially for consumers/public.
- Roger Q – asks if there is a draft 63-4. Answer–not yet.
- Further discussion of use cases, and definition of what "plus" might be, and whether that could be somewhat standardized.
- Eric suggests that using the existing approach (what kinds of evidence – fair, good – and what combinations) could be used to standardized a 1-plus level. Adam says that would be useful.
- Mark King: need to have a clearer "what will this accomplish" definition.
- Ken will try to update comments in light of today's discussion.
Review TSA RFI re mDL
- Next time, but briefly: Colin: today's discussion could play into a possible response to TSA. Believes Kantara will decide to make a response.
...