2015-01-27 Meeting Notes

Everyone aware

Quorum not reached

Sal to look into changing Ken Daggs status to voting

Ian commented that the comments so far have generally been positive and that the paper is almost ready to release to group for agreement.

Ian asked for the group to disscuss Colin Wallis (Unlicensed) comments.

Comment 1:( I read Section 2, I was asking myself 'do all laws need to be present before we consider it is 'real/bonafide RM'..? I seem to recall an email thread on this, but I don't see the conclusion of that entered into the doc anywhere. My sense is that it is a reasonable question folks will ask so we should answer it here)

Response: Good call by Colin, but this paper isnt about making a statement about how an IRM product should work in terms of handling all of the relationships outlined. Ian will now include a statement to cover this off in his paper.

Ken put forward that it depends on who is viewing the suituation and which criteria of relationship fit this. Ultimately, this document is meant to be evaluative. However it was commented tat going forward we need a 'litmus test' for what constitues an IRM solution in terms of how it handles relationships.

Comment 2: (Last para in Section 3, Conclusion. I think a natural additional future item not shown here is, 'what sub types of relationships are in scope here?' We mention delegation, and we mention types of provable relationships, but that's not what I mean.. What I mean is delegation is a relationship sub type, so is Guardianship... what else? If we could offer up more real world/in use descriptors, that might link the theory to the practical usage )

Response: Ian will show in the document that next work will look at the kinds of relationships and sub-relationships in greater detail and we need to return to relationship hierachies. Ian suggested that we invite experts in specific relationships areas, such as 'gaurdianship' to talk about the practicalities and legal aspects.

Adrian suggested that we distinguish between human and non-human relationships - Ian will mull on this.

Comment 3: (I'm not sure the examples in 2.6 and 2.6.1 are crash hot. 2.6's example might be OK, as Identity Assurance from OMB M04-04. As soon as you put 'LoA' in there some folks will go NIST-y :-).  And for 2.6.1 I'm wondering if a self issued SSL Cert is the best we can do. I kind of get that it works, but again, I think it's open to misinterpretation on a  quick read. Is a 'claim' too simplistic? Maybe..)

Response: Ian will ask the group for other examples he could use in 2.6.1, e.g. self asserted claims. We will also look at a more flexible example than LOA

In this document we wont include reference to the UMA or  MVCR  specs but do relaise that in other more appropriate documents, going forward, that we will need to reference these.

Bill let the group now that the WIRM document sub committe had thier first meeting 2 weeeks ago, with their next meeting coming this Friday, 30th anuary.

The WIRM curriculum group discussed the audience and content of the WIRM document and will try and assign taks to group members in the next meeting.

Bill has produced notes and distributed them to the curriculam group

Joni will be postng a blog post about the groups work to coincide with the release of the Laws of relationships document. This brought us onto discussing how to publicise the wg and our deliverables. Bill has setup a LinkedIN gourp and we neeed to start using this. Initially we need to drive users to the group whihc can be done by sending out invites to the group. Susan will ask Bill to make other members of the WG admins for the linkedin group to do this. Susan will try and post relevant group papers and discussion points, etc. In addiiton, we need to link the Twtter account (Joni created) to the LinkedIn group to co-publicize posts and events. Sal will ask to be the admin of the twitter account @irmwg

Susan will create an email to be sent out to the WG to ask members to tweet about the release of the Laws of relationships paper, once released.

it was recognised that as none of us are marketing professionals or have a lot fo time that marketing efforts will be ad hoc.