BIAS draft v0.8 discussion points

BIAS participants –

While incorporating the IPR comments, I noticed the following items, which we can discuss during our call today. (Note, this is secondary to review of the marked changes.)

- Editor TBD – leave as is or insert Matt and Cathy?

- TOC – operations still don’t show in TOC, only primitive & aggregate headings. Go to 4^th level or flatten sections?

- Background, last sentence – change “protocol” to something else?

- Citing references – one example I looked at had no bold, but blue font inside brackets. What is the norm?

- Use of URI vs IRI. We are inconsistent. Web reference says IRI is more current, but URI is certainly more commonly used. (Note, if decide on URI, delete reference to IRI RFC from references.)

- Terminology – I added the common acronyms as we discussed; however, in reviewing several other OASIS standards, this section is typically sparse if populated at all. Also, some of the terms defined are also defined in section 2.3. Should they be defined both places? For the last 2, should BIAS come first?

- CBEFF version. Fernando Podio pointed out that there are some patron formats in the US version that are not included in the international version. I don’t think we’ve precluded their use by citing the ISO version, but we should discuss.

- Operations (3.3.x.x) – First 2 lines of each description are links to request and response messages. Needed? Repetitive?

- I need to double-check all cross references.

- Line 662 (markup) – change “protocol” to “message”?

- Do we need to acknowledge any external namespaces we use (i.e., cbeff, ansi-nist)?

- Lines 668-670 (markup) appear to conflict with lines 697-699 (regarding base-64).

- Line 743 (markup) says BIASOperationName is included in response message, but we have not actually done so.

- Lines 809-812 (markup) assume transport level security and imply that message level security is not needed, though in later subsections, this is contradicted. Is it sufficiently caveated?

- Line 886 (markup) – typo on “guarantee”. Do we need an example of tailoring (e.g., specification of particular biometric/biographic data formats?)

- Annex B & C: Do we need numbers for sub-sections?

- Line 3978 (markup) – Typo in box (should be “IdentifySubject”). Will require updated artwork.

- Annex D – add Ed Clay & Ramesh Nagappan. Remove * from Wing (check if wants both orgs). Include anyone who ever attended a meeting as anything other than a guest? Luther H?

- Annex D still needs to be updated. Matt has agreed to do this in next pass.

- There are some remaining items in temporary Annex F that we should decide about.

Regards,

bias message