[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes from March 22 Trust Elevation TC call.
Minutes for the face-to-face meeting of the Electronic Identity Credential Trust Elevation Methods (Trust Elevation) Technical Committee 22 March, 2012 1. Call to Order and Welcome. 2. Roll Call Attending (please notify me if you attended the meeting but are not on the list below)
73 percent of the voting members were present at the meeting. We did have quorum. 2. Agenda review and approvalWe used the following chat room for the call: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/trust-el chat room text is included at the end of the minutes. Abbie asked if there were any additions to the agenda. There were none and we proceeded with the agenda.3. Approve MinutesMary to a motion to approve the minutes of March 8.Don seconded the motion. There were no objections. The motion passed. 4. Face-to-face meeting update Abbie began by explaining that it was a very productive F2F meeting. On March 14th, we kept the meeting open for everyone [from the IDtrust conference]. So no minutes were generated for that part of the meeting. There were 20-30 people who came in and stayed over from the workshop. Then Jeremy Grant joined us. The discussion with Jeremy Abbie can be shared as it is public knowledge, an objective for NSTIC. He commented that OASIS may be one of the entities that is planning to bid on the steering committee. Abbie continued, on Thursday we had our F2F hosted at CA’s offices in DC, We really thank CA for providing that opportunity. We looked at our first delivery. We agreed it is just a collection of available methods [with use case examples in an appendix]. We discussed two use cases. One is the PLOA from AT&T, and the second is Intel’s secure storage technology. We moved fast and extracted methods that the use cases illustrate. The editors were given a task to make the first draft available. This is in a nut shell what happened. Mary will provide the minutes for the second day of the F2F. The intention is for that first draft to be done two weeks from today, and we can review it on the next call. Then we can move on to the second deliverable. Peter commented that he wants an actual list of methods. Mary asked for further input. [There was none] Abbie commented that we have agreement. Abbie asked if Mary published anything after the F2F. Mary responded that she created a sample portion of the new method list format. Abbie talked about next steps. When we get this next version of the first deliverable, we can stop the process and make it a draft. The first deliverable is not a standard. Abbie said we need to create a road map for the TC. Abbie thinks we should work on a clear draft of a phase 2 deliverable to send to the committee. We need to agree when 2nd deliverable should be. He proposed the July OSIS board meeting (3rd week in July) and the 3rd deliverable by the end of the year. Peter was theoretically OK with this. He will need to work thru the details. Masi asked for the date of this proposed meeting. Abbie will come back with the dates. This is all TBD. Peter said we haven’t even started to sketch this out. Mary proposed to have a draft for the TC for the next TC call, which is two week from today. There is a lot of refactoring that has to be done to the document. We will have something for the TC to provide feedback to, and can go over the list and table of methods. Abbie commented that x.1252, has 4 factors. We are adding one more category: context. At the F2F the question was asked: is behavior equal to context? The answer is no. Context is an attribute within a sequence of events as seen by the RP. So the way we look at it, context is within something. Behavior is a reflection of the entity. If anyone has an issue with this distinction, we want to hear from you before we continue further, so we can resolve the issue. Cathy replied that she didn’t have any disagreement. She mentioned that when you start to talk about what you are, it consists of physiological and behavioral attributes. Abbie agreed, if your behavior is genetically related. There was more discussion defining context. Abbie said the more challenging work is at deliverables 2 and 3. Now we need to move quickly beyond this stage. Are we considering the 4 factors? Cathy said the biometric, regardless of whether it is physiological or behavioral is part of what you are. Voice is a combination. Keyboard signature is considered behavioral. There was agreement. Abbie brought the meeting to an early close. He really thanks the editors now as they have the burden to do a lot of revisions. 5. Attendance Update We achieved quorum. 6. Adjournment Abbie asked for a motion to conclude. Shaheen moved to adjourn. Rebecca seconded the motion. There were no objections. The meeting was adjourned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anonymous morphed into Campanile abbie: CHAT ROOM http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/trust-el Passcode: 637 218 8139Int'l Toll: 1-980-939-6928 abbie: 1. roll call 2. agenda approval3. approve minutes4. f2f update5. editors update6. roll call7. conclude anonymous morphed into Cathy Tilton (Daon) Mary Ruddy: Please call in, we need quorum Gershon Janssen: Hi; I'll join somewhat later... a previous meeting is still running due to DST change US/EU Mary Ruddy: meeting has concluded early |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]