IAWG Meeting Minutes 2013-01-24

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Apr 02, 2013 by Former user (Deleted)
3 min read

Kantara Initiative Identity Assurance WG Teleconference

Minutes approved by the IAWG, 14-March-2013

Date and Time

Agenda

  1. Administration:
    1. Roll Call
    2. Agenda Confirmation
    3. Minutes approval: IAWG Meeting Minutes 2012-12-13
  2. Discussion
    1. Issue Tracking - update
    2. IAF Process and Errata - update
    3. Glossary work
    4. KIAF profiling
  3. AOB
  4. Adjourn

Attendees

  • Myisha Frazier-McElveen
  • Scott Shorter
  • Bill Braithwaite
  • Richard Wilsher

As of 14 January 2013, quorum is 4 of 7

Non-Voting

  • Rich Furr
  • Ken Dagg
  • Andrew Hughes

Apologies

Notes & Minutes

  • Minute approval postponed to next week
Issue Tracking
  • no updates
IAF Process and Errata - see current diagram
  • split the diagram in to two flows - one for errata, and one for IAF formal feedback
  • Suggestion, add a communication back to the commentator, after prioritization
  • Why not just a published running list?  Ken/Bill: because that is a passive not an active feedback, and a push feedback would be appropriate
  • this is labelled IAF because comments could come in against any of the documents, so while we would address errata per document, the process would cover the entire document set
    • we need to look at the comments to see if a comment on one document has impact on any other document
    • this is for internal IAWG evaluation for errata
    • rather than saying "final version published" have it point to "Kantara secretariat for public comment process"
Glossary
  • subteam still discussing this
  • Ken Dagg went through the 6 documents and the current glossary, reviewing terms and trying to ensure or identify where the term might be used, and if the term was used was the current definition applicable to that term in that document; also identified terms not currently in the glossary but used and defined in one or more of the document; now that we have that preliminary analysis done, what do we do with it? 
    • next steps would include discussing inconsistent usage, add definitions for terms that did not appear, update definitions that are clear - the latter two are relatively straightforward, but the first item is very big
    • when we get to the point of the drafting some updated definitions, the suggestions will be sent to the larger IAWG list, and when we talk about inconsistent usage, that will definitely be a full group discussion
  • we are about to publish the SACs at v 3.0, but would like to have a v 3.0.1 since some inconsistencies found - should these be errata? One example: there is different guidance at level 1 or level 2, apparently because they were written at different time not because the differences are valid
    • if there are things that are not quite the same, those we should look at in the definitional stuff; changes to content and specific criteria that is an errata to the IAF or a suggested change to the IAF
    • we want to avoid a great deal of overhead, but we don't have a consistent way to deal with what comes in; we want a simple way to gather what comes in
  • Have some significant problems with the new document set; started with the AAS and found it impossible to follow
    • reminder we put stuff in grey text that is no presently happening; they were ideas we did not want to lose
KIAF profiling
  • the goal is to come up with a way to use the IAF to conform to other policy approaches than FICAM; the IAF with FICAM profile would be used by those that want FICAM approval, but maybe we would have a Canadian profile for their rules (different set of assurance levels)
    • will put on the agenda for a future meeting

AOB

  • IAF all member vote - reminder

Next Meeting