...
- Administration:
- Roll Call
- Agenda Confirmation
- Discussion / Action Item Review
- AOB
Identity Assurance Landscape
- Adjourn
...
Action | Assigned To | Status | Description | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20130109-01 | Leif Johnason | create a simple semantic diagram on one of the simple flows | |||
| 20130109-02 | Keith Hazelton | create a semantic diagram that will look something at a historical perspective |
Discussion
- Roadmap
- Ken Dagg: Gov't of Canada particularly interested in the Attribute Handling best practices; there are about 180 agencies in the gov't that are almost handling attributes the same; assuming this document is about the SP's handling
- we will need to put a paragraph or two around each to make sure we know what each doc in the roadmap is expected to cover
- Ken Dagg will volunteer for Attribute Handling Best Practice description
- Keith Hazelton will volunteer for Context description
- David Chadwick: in the doc from Andrew Hughes, where is credential validation done? Ken K - that's probably a deep hole that we'll want to get to later in the call? Ken D - this is a draft document, informed by about 4 people, and in the last few days more activity has happened with Anil's blog encouraging more discussion
- Leif Johansson: query for Ken K with the trust broker work, should that be a criteria based approach, something that is auditable with something like the IAF? Asking since Ken K is so involved in the NSTIC view of things
- Ken K: not looking at this in the model he's working on; working on a metaphor or language so we can have the conversation
- Leif: assuming Ken D might have a different perspective? Ken D: an attribute broker best practice will be more at a policy level, an attribute broker is a way forward and there is probably a similarity between an attribute broker and a credential broker; want to make sure the operations around an attribute broker are operationally supportable (repeatable, do-able)
- Allan: the issue of an IdP being separate from the attribute provider are starting to raise questions around privacy issues around IdP not knowing which attribute provider the user is going to, so the general discussion has been in defining what framework the attribute provider can work in that is separate from the IdP
- Leif: is this group focused on SAML, or are we looking at other technologies, or are we entirely technology agnostic?
- Ken K: technology agnostic, though once we get a sense of flows, some of those might be technology dependent; once we have a sence of that, will start to look at what else might be flowing besides trust and attributes; will label the flows in greater detail, such as listing the bundles that would be moving around in various use cases and scenarios
- Ken D: agree, technology agnostic, and once we agree with what the problem is, we can get further in to the technology component
- Leif: expected this answer, but deployability and scalability will be greatly informed by technology; should be aware of that even as we start as being technology agnostic
- Rainer: we definitely need to support multiple technologies, so starting as technology neutral is good
...