Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 12 Next »

Attendees

Mark

Andrew

Richard W.

Nathan

Scott 

Ken


Key discussion items 

  • Andrew said that if our objective is to strict evaluate conformity to the requirements stated in -63, we should produce an assessment guide and instructions to some extent in order to have assessors assess in a similar ways and come to similar conclusions.
  • Richard W. stressed that it is not only set of criteria which defines what is required, but make discrete statements and evaluate if they need clarification.

  • It was asked what the assessors need into this process. RW Determine making a claim that meet the requirements conformity or not. We are Concern Reading the statement with SHALLs and determine that the provide to the service meets the requirements, there might be a policy or practice statement

 

  • Mark commented that it would be good to structure the claims in a useful way.

 

RW Break this down. Requirements text making a number of discrete statement.

5.1.7.1 4 discrete requirements. CSP are aware on what you Need t show compliance to.

 

SSh criteria clearly identified list of what are the sets of requirements, get them all clearly articulated that can be evaluated or assessed. There is a tree structure, there is more structure plain list, whatever it takes to formally express the content that can be evaluated in a rigorous way.

 

63-3 specific we are going 62-3 OP SAC as the ongoing international -3 approval process

focus on 63-3. Beyond just ficam circle.

 

Should not

mArk A document and create a directed graph with optional and required edges on it that describes the spec.

Mark Happner: Create a directed graph that describes spec (with JSON-LD)

- Andrew Hughes:  Break down 63A

- Scott Shorter: Break down 63C 

 

identigy and document the requirements.

 

 













AUDIO/VIDEO FILE: 

  • No labels