Quorum was reached.
Is the new paradigm working? Is it too confusing? It may impose more mental work on everybody, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sal thinks he might attend IIW, but we know of no others. So let's definitely plan on having an all-hands call during IIW week.
AI:
Date | Who | Status | Action | Topic area | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thomas, Sal, Eve | Open | Capture business-oriented use cases. | Educational | We think Mike S.'s efforts on writing a case study will get us the closest to this goal. | |
2012-07-19-3 | Eve | Open | Put feature tests on the OSIS wiki. | Interop | Eve made progress on the offline version of these. Up through Section 2, these are nominally done; Section 3 is partially done based on Trey's and Martin's work. |
2012-08-02-2 | Eve | Open | Send UMA use case information to PMRM group. | Educational | We will just point them to our published case studies when we have them. |
2012-08-02-3 | Sal, Trey | Open | Liaise with others as appropriate on potential alignment opportunities for host/AM introduction-type patterns. | Technical | Sal will reach out to the AXN winners of the NSTIC grant, cc'ing Eve. He has also asked for the pilot proposals to be made public; we expect they will, eventually. |
2012-08 | Eve | Open | Help dyn-client-reg spec progress in the OAuth WG. | Technical | Eve has reached out to Evan Prodromou and Nat Sakimura to find out their interest and status, but we still don't have an active spec editor. Thomas and Eve will meet with Nat and sort things out. |
Alam will have an ACM article published on their UMA implementation shortly. And Maciej et al. have prepared a paper on their use case and implementation as well. From this, Eve got the idea of standardizing a case study document template, so that potential users and deployers of UMA can pick and choose.
The new Case Studies page on the wiki has the template. Here are updated notes on the currently planned case studies, with a bit of prioritization:
AI:
Eve shared the progress we achieved on discussing the Binding Obligations document. George points out the the plain meaning of delegation is that you are transferring authority you have; you can't transfer authority you don't have. So maybe obligation R1b is overthinking things. If someone has admin authority (e.g., R/W entitlement but not the instance of the entitlement), then they should be able to delegate a R/W entitlement instance. Thomas points out that the Kerberos concept of proxiable and forwardable tickets causes no end of strife! Let's take out R1b. We can always pick it up later when we have a valid use case for it. It's the "sore thumb" obligation.
As of 12 July 2012 (pre-meeting), quorum is 7 of 13.
Non-voting participants: