Date
July 28th, 2015
Attendees
Goals
- Kantara IPR Feedback, Review and Agreement
- Principles Review
Discussion Items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 min | Kantara IPR | Sal | |
| 3 mins | Roll Call | Sal |
|
| 7 mins | Secretary Nomination | Sal |
|
| 4 mins | Minutes/Notes Update | Sal |
|
| 35 mins | Principles | All |
|
| 3 mins | Other Admin | All |
|
| 1 mins | AoB | All |
|
Action Items
High-level Topics Covered
- Role call
- Secretary Nomination
- Principles Discussion
- Provable
- Actionable
Detailed Meeting Notes
Continuing to work through principles and the conversation on constrainable and then onward to other principles.
OK with current comments on constrainable.
Turn to provable. Describes relations, there is a “level of assurance”, at creation of the relationship and then “at run time”, 2.6.1-3 are just instances and could be a red herring in the discussion. These are almost assertion types not “how you prove it”, there is a requirement for establish a way to prove or “source” or “authoritative source”, level of trust of creator, owner, members, relying party.
This seems like a “relationship manager”, so hand over a block chain or “IRM token” to someone who can answer the question “valid for me and this?”
Issues are associated/similar to those of identity assurance/attributes. Relationships may not be as directly “related” to an individual or thing as identity attributes. So ideas around provable might be an example of where identity and relationship might be the same.
So if something is proven once what does that mean.
Principles can have dependencies on other principles in use, so as an example provable/immutable could be assumed provable over time vs. provable/mutable might require “freshness” or “run time” check.
So transferring a relationship might be OK for an individual but revoking might be more complex, so what permission or control tracks to actionable principles.
So determining a relationship exists is one kind of “proof” but are there other aspects of relationships where provable apply, do others come into play as to whether actions can be taken. So does provable apply to actions? Maybe.. is this authentication, authorization, or is this actionable.
Leading to a look at actionable.
Needs an example, e.g. a legally signed contract.
Is it possible to have a relationship that is not actionable? Is that a relationship with no value or no relationship at all?
Is this a legitimate item. Relationships exist period. The fact that it enables an action may not be much of a matter? <- Ian can you chime in.
Quality control is not exactly a principle, so is actionable a business relationship vs. principle.
This might relate “IRM tokens” but you can’t really be sure based on the text here.
Maybe there is another word(s), is this the ability to carry actionable (e.g. authZ) information