2022-10-12 Meeting notes
- John Wunderlich
- Heather Flanagan (Unlicensed)
Approved 26 October 2022
Date
Oct 12, 2022
Attendees
See the Participant roster
Voting (5 of 10 required for quorum)
Participant | Attending | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aronson, Marc | Â |
| 2 | Davis, Peter | Â |
| 3 | D'Agostino, Salvatore | Â |
| 4 | Hodges, Gail | Yes |
| 5 | Hughes, Andrew | Â |
| 6 | Jones, Thomas | Â |
| 7 | Krishnaraj, Venkat | Â |
| 8 | Thoma, Andreas | Â |
| 9 | Williams, Christopher | Â |
| 10 | Wunderlich, John | Yes |
Non-Voting
Participant | Attending | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Auld, Lorrayne | Â |
| 2 | Balfanz, Dirk | Â |
| 3 | Chaudhury, Atef | Yes |
| 4 | Brudnicki, David | Â |
| 5 | Dutta, Tim | Â |
| 6 | Flanagan, Heather | Yes |
| 7 | Fleenor, Judith | Â |
| 8 | Glasscock, Amy | Â |
| 9 | Gropper, Adrian | Â |
| 10 | Jordaan, Loffie | Yes |
| 11 | LeVasseur, Lisa | Â |
| 12 | Lopez, Cristina Timon | Â |
| 13 | Snell, Oliver | Â |
| 14 | Stowell, Therese | Â |
| 15 | Tamanini, Greg | Â |
| 16 | Vachino, Maria | Â |
| 17 | Whysel, Noreen | Â |
Other attendees
Â
Goals
Check-in on work progress
Review draft outline and status of writing tasks
Discussion items (AKA Agenda)
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| @John Wunderlich | Called to order at 13:07 Quorum not achieved Minutes to Approve: Approved by those attending | |
10 min. | Open Tasks Review | All | |
5 min. | Draft Report Discussion | @John Wunderlich | Discussions Report from Implementor’s Report sub-group Created a subgroup that is starting to integrate what's in confluence for the draft implementers report. That includes members from Google, AAMVA, Apple, and John now; others are welcome to join. Meetings are weekly on Monday. Edits are being made in a Google doc. In each of the three areas (Info for Verifiers, Providers, and Issuers), looking at a three-part axis: framing statement, guidance, and evidence (how do you prove you have done this). Note that the Candidate Requirements do not fit in this report. Those requirements are for conformance testing; the implementer report fit in that framework. What's in the wiki now in the implementer's report on the wiki is more a brain dump of what could be in the report. Moving ahead with the requirements will be hard unless we have the implementers guidance is there to set the framing. The devil remains in the detail; while there is general agreement, the specifics around things like "what is consent" are still an issue. We will have to dig into what we intend with the phrase "operational circumstances." The burden right now is on the verifier as to what's appropriate in a given circumstance; when we get around to requirements and validation, conformance testers will have to judge what's appropriate. The holder/wallet maker will in turn need to say whether the info they're being asked for is appropriate or not. How do we articulate the responsibilities for the holder or their agent? Tasks: |
20 min. | Requirements Review | @John Wunderlich | Pending |
Other Business | Welcome Heather Flanagan HF will be attending calls, taking notes and sending out updates, and will be lead editor for the reports, making sure they're in Kantara format and helping drive consensus. More info on HF is available via LInkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hlflanagan/ | ||
5 min. | Adjourn |
Next meeting
Oct 19, 2022Â