IAWG Meeting Notes 2012-10-11

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Oct 11, 2012
3 min read

IAWG Meeting 11 October 2012

Date and Time

Agenda

  1. Administration:
    1. Roll Call
    2. Agenda Confirmation
  2. Discussion
    1. IAF Mapping to 29115
    2. Glossary
    3. Roadmap / F2F Meeting Agenda
  3. AOB
  4. Adjourn

Attendees

  • Scott Shorter
  • Colin Soutar
  • Myisha Frazier-McElveen (chair)

Quorum is 4 of 6 as of 17 September 2012.

Staff:

  • Heather Flanagan (scribe)

Non-voting:

  • Jeff Stollman
  • Ken Dagg
  • Nathan Faut

Apologies:

  • Joni Brennan
  • Andrew Hughes

Minutes

  • meeting not at quorum; minutes not voted on

Discussion

IAF Mapping to 29115

  • Discuss the process by which we will look at this, get this more solidified as part of the IAWG work plan
  • (HF) has the document been distributed? (Myisha) have not seen it yet, but that's not the focus of today's call
  • (Scott) this is an interesting effort; the spec costs about $130, so unless we have a licensing arrangement with ISO we will not see it on the mailing list
  • (Colin) there is a subcommittee under Kantara that has a relationship with ISO such that documents can be shared within that subcommittee - should this discussion go to that group so we can share the document? (Scott) seems like a good idea
  • (Colin) discussion of the document itself should happen within that subcommittee, but the implications should be discussed in IAWG - which is very tricky; (Myisha) perhaps the other group can create a gap analysis document and then the IAWG can take on modifications of the IAF? (Colin) that should be ok as long as we do not directly reference copyrighted material

Glossary

  • we had deferred the glossary so it could receive an in-depth review
  • Suggestion from RGW onhow we might move the glossary forward:

I think we need to have a review of each and every definition, accounting for the already-proposed changes, but also considering the wider scene:

i)                    Is the definition used (across the span of IAF docs)?  No, then drop it;

ii)                   Is it used in a manner consistent with its definition?  No, then change the definition (probably, but maybe we need to change the usage – I’d anticipate that the usage reflects a migration since the definitions were first constructed and is most likely to be a better guide than the definition);

iii)                 Are the definitions internally consistent?  No, then fix accounting for the points above AND that below;

iv)                 Are the definitions non-circular?  (the way to test is to order them in dependence order rather than alphabetically – a term can only depend on a previously-defined term in its definition; this soon sorts things out (and in my view is a better justification for a glossary, because it ‘tells the story’ through having a chain of definitions) ).


That’d be my starting point.  I’d caution against ‘philosophical’ revisions without understanding the usage within the IAF docs (e.g. the ‘Applicant / Subject / Claimant’ discussion).

  • (Scott) these look like good, analytical steps; perhaps a group of volunteers can take this on? interested in participating but cannot volunteer until November
  • (Ken) one aspect missing and that's the alignment with other definitions in use by other organizations; this is all focused internally to Kantara with no alignment
  • (Scott) perhaps some of the recent NSTIC work would be helpful (  http://www.idecosystem.org/sites/default/files/NSTIC%20Terminology%20Report.pdf)
  • (Ken) interested in participating, but cannot lead the group
  • (Myisha) perhaps we could break this up so different people could take smaller sections? no group comment
  • (Myisha) other than ISO and NSTIC, where should we be looking for definitions? (Ken) OASIS, given how much our work is based on SAML
  • (Ken) put this out to the list to solicit further volunteers since this is a small call

Roadmap / F2F Meeting Agenda

  • who is planning to attend? Ken cannot attend; Nathan will attend
  • (Myisha) given the work items ahead of us, did we want to request time on the agenda for specific work items? for example, the P3WG is going to give a briefing on the PAC.  Perhaps we could review the Glossary, or discuss the Relying Party Guidelines
    • (Scott) would be interested in leading the conversation around the Glossary at the meeting

 

AOB

 

Next call: