...
Criteria Guidance - Review and approve suggested change for 63B#0010
- Ken said he committed an error, he overlooked one comment in the preparation of the 63B Service Assessment Criteria before releasing into the All Member ballot. He apologized for that error.
- Richard explained that he came up with a very simple new criterion “The CSP SHALL authenticate a Claimant at at least the requested AAL”.
- Ken asked to go back to the NIST requirement. Richard said this is one of those vague NIST requirements. Richard clarified that what really matters is the level of Assurance of the credential with respect with the level of Assurance that is being required.
- Mark said he likes the idea, although he would be interested if anybody knows of the implications if anything is paid for on a case by case basis, whether supplying more than you are asked for it. The position of any provider in the middle is quite messy. Ken said these are technical requirements.
- Martin pointed out he is fine with the language.
- Colin argued remarked that this is a non-material change.
- Ruth commented that given that the LC ratified the versionsSACs, she believes that the only expected step here would be suggested to notify LC chair Chair about this material change and to explain about all the commercial pressure on this . This was expected to be ready early September and it is being done in the middle of October. She suggested Ken to notify Andrew (LC chair) and that would be good.due to CSPs are waiting to be assessed against the new and revised criteria. Ken will write an email to Andrew explaining the situation.
- Motion: To approve revised criteria 63B#0010. Moved: Jimmy Jung; Seconded: Mark Hapner. Carried unanimously with one abstention (Richard Wilsher abstained).
...