...
- Nomination for vice chair completed, and Rich Furr was the sole nominee
- Rich Furr approved by acclimation, no objection
Discussion
Roadmap
- see 2013 IAWG ROADMAP
- re: privacy effort, rescheduling the discussion with the P3WG leadership
- De-coupled binding - how are we progressing this forward since Andrew is no longer an individual contributor to the group? this can still be part of Andrew's contribution, just needs to find time to do so
- if there is a Q3 time frame, Scott Shorter, Ken Dagg, and Richard Wilsher can commit to work on it in that timescale
- is there a scope to this activity? that is part of the activity as defined in the roadmap
- IAF alignment - should be with the 800-63-2, not -1; this is in progress and it will be Q2 analysis and completion, so there will be a revised SAC, which Richard is treating it as an independent revision (not looking at anything else that might need to be changed in the SAC); does not anticipate any other documents needing to be changed
- risk to time frame is the feedback rate from the IAWG
- Richard may request a revision to 800-63-2 to make it a more useful document; had discussed this with Tim Polk but now with Tim out of the immediately loop, not sure who the champion is for 800-63
- Relying Party guidelines - on the list, but we don't have a champion or direct driving need; will keep on the list so as not to lose sight of its importance
- should consider reviewing the original notes that inspired this and discussing on a future call
- AI for Myisha: send out thoughts on the scope of this document to frame the discussion
- Alignment with ISO 29115 - Richard suggests we should definitely work on this alignment so that we can in turn provide input to a related doc, IS29003; this group should actively participate in reviewing that document; Kantara has a liaison with SC 27 which allows us to submit comments
- SC 27 will publish after April a working draft of 29003; that will be sent to national bodies and (probably) liaison bodies; when the docs are published, we could make them available to the liaison subcommittee (need to check the copyright issue)
- specifically, how do we engage IAWG members to have a discussion? it is difficult to get time slices from the members, so for those who are analyzing the doc through their own channels, would it be reasonable for IAWG to have those people bring in specific issues rather than ask the whole group to review the doc? do we need to engage a wider discussion within the IAWG to shape the details on the documents? If that is something we want to do, what is the best way to make this discussion interesting and relevant enough to get more participation from other IAWG members?
- when we get the document, can make an announcement of its availability, and then it will be accessed only through the liaison subcommittee
- should this be IAF alignment, or IAWG feedback? it should be alignment to 29115, and it should say Q2; 29003 is being based on 29115 and feedback in to that should be Q3
- Anything else to add? people were asking if there was a scheme or something about attributes gathered after identity has been established; the scenarios is that there is some identity provider that gathers an identity from an authentication/credential, but then goes out for additional attributes before issuing a final SAML assertion - it is doing some kind of suitability assessment
- basically, an LoA on attributes; aka attribute assurance
- there are groups working on attributes right now through OIX and OASIS and Kantara (AIM WG)
- may want to consider if and how this needs to feed in to the IAF
...