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 13 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 a set of criteria which defines what is required, but discrete statements and evaluate if they need clarification.

  • Richard W. pointed out that assessors´s concern is that when reading the statement with SHALLs 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.

  • Richard W. suggested to break the source doc. down, identify the requirements text and make a number of discrete statements. For example in 5.1.7.1 there are 4 discrete requirements, so the CSP is aware on what they need to show to be compliant. 
  • Scott highlighted that we should focus on a criteria clearly identified list of what are the sets of requirements, get them all clearly articulated that can be evaluated or assessed. We need to use whatever structure to there is 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