Notes from September 19th call

["Mary Ruddy" <mary@meristic.com>]

Minutes for the meeting of the Electronic Identity Credential Trust Elevation Methods (Trust Elevation) Technical Committee

September 19, 2013.

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)

 

Abbie Barbir, Bank of America

Anil Saldhana, Red Hat  

Bob Sunday

Brendan Peter, CA

Carl Mattocks, Bofa 

Cathy Tilton, Daon 

Charline Duccans, DHS

Duane DeCouteau

Colin Wallis, New Zealand Government 

Dale Rickards, Verizon Business 

David Brossard, Axiomatics 

Dazza Greenwood 

Debbie Bucci, NIH 

Deborah Steckroth, RouteOne LLC

Detlef Huehnlein, Federal Office for Information

Diego Matute, Centrify

Don Thibeau, Open Identity Exchange   

Doron Cohen, SafeNet

Doron Grinstein, BiTKOO

Gershon Janssen  - y 

Ivonne Thomas, Hasso Plattner Institute

Jaap Kuipers, Amsterdam  

James Clark – Oasis

Jeff Broburg, CA

John Bradley 

John "Mike" Davis, Veteran's Affairs 

John Walsh, Sypris Electronics

Jonas Hogberg

Julian Hamersley, Adv Micro Devices

Kevin Mangold, NIST 

Lucy Lynch  ISOC

Marcus Streets, Thales e-Security

Marty Schleiff, The Boeing Company

Mary Ruddy, Identity Commons  - y

Massimiliano Masi, Tiani "Spirit" GmbH 

Mike Harrop

Mohammad Jafari, ESC  - y

Peter Alterman, SAFE-BioPharma - y 

Rainer Hoerbe -

Rebecca Nielsen, Booz Allen Hamilton 

Rich Furr

Ronald Perez, Advanced Micro Devices

Scott Fitch Lockeed Martin

Shaheen Abdul Jabbar, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. - y 

Shahrokh Shahidzadeh (Intel Corp 

Suzanne Gonzales-Webb, VA  - y

Tony Rutkowski

Tony Nadlin

Thomas Hardjono, M.I.T.  

William Barnhill, Booz Allen Hamilton

Adrianne James, VA - y

Patrick, Axiomatics

Steve Olshansky  - y

 

70 percent of the voting members were present at the meeting.  We did have quorum.

 

 

2. Agenda review and approval

 

We 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.

               

 

The agenda was approved.

 

3. Approval of the Minutes

 

Mary asked if there were any objections to approving the minutes from the last meeting on September 19, 2013.

 

Mary asked for a motion.

Steve made a motion to approve the September 19th minutes.

Peter seconded the motion.

There were no objections.

The minutes were approved. 

 

 

4.  Editors Update.

 

Steve began by explain that this is basically an editor’s call.  To date he has receive zero response and one thank you for the opportunity to review.

 

Joni agreed to send the draft to the two Kantara groups. It hasn’t gone out to the AIM group yet. 

 

Mary believes that other than the two Kantara working groups, the draft has gone to the list of identified reviewers.

 

Peter said what we need to do is continue on the behalf of the member section steering committee to setup a webinar. Work with Carol to arrange a webinar to present and discuss it. And give the member section via Dee a list of events we would like to have this deliverable presented for discussion.  We have talked about this from time to time, but we have never actually done this (committed to a webinar and created the slides and schedule.)

 

Peter asked when is feedback due.

 

Mary replied it is due the 30th.

 

Peter asked do you folks agree.

 

Mary agreed that a webinar may be an easier way to get feedback.

 

Shaheen agreed.

 

Shaheen asked is this just for TC members?

 

Peter replied it is for everyone.

 

Shaheen agreed that would be good.

 

Peter said I would presume we should want the editors to put together the presentation for the webinar.

 

Steve replied that seems reasonable.

 

Peter said Mary as secretary, would you arrange a brief conversation with Dee and Carol to discuss scheduling a webinar.

 

***Action item to schedule phone call with Dee and Carol to schedule the webinar.  Also Copy John Sabo as he seems to go to all the good meetings.

 

Steve and Mohammad volunteered to help.

 

Shaheen volunteered to help with preparing the materials.

 

Peter would like each of us to look at our calendars and see if there are any meetings where there should be a presentation and guided discussion. 

 

Steve asked given the time zone problems of accommodating EU and APAC, should we do this two times?

 

Peter replied yes, maybe 2 or 3 or more times. If we do it multiple times we will get a better sense of the response to the content. He will raise this at the next steering committee meeting.

 

Peter said for the next meeting, perhaps we can announce beforehand that we will discuss the webinar and venues for presentation and discussion. We will see if we can generate a little more interest.  He asked Steve to nag people every few days.

 

Steve replied I’m intending to re-ping everyone emailed, since she copied me.

 

Mary introduced one more topic.  A part of finalizing the third deliverable, we need to revisit the links to the first two deliverables. The first deliverable is currently posted as a committee draft rather than a committee note.  Fixing this will require another vote.  Since we need to have another vote anyway, I would like to take the opportunity to add the following clarifying comment to the first document in the context section

 

“Note that endpoint identity is listed under both the “what you have” and “context” categories.  It is a relatively new method. Depending on the situation and how the method is implemented, it may constitute what you have (i.e. call from a landline that has previously been registered to the user); or it may just provide additional context. “

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Peter replied if we are going to accept endpoint in multiple categories, then I think that that is a way to do it.  Your text is adequate. But do we feel that it really straddles two different methods, or is it really just one?  He continued, if you think that is appropriate and silences your critics, I’m ok with it. He would put it in the context category.  It is the first deliverable and it has been out a year, and the change doesn’t affect the 2nd or third deliverable. It may wind up in another category in two years.

 

Mary replied so you are ok and don’t think is a big deal either way?

 

Peter replied yes that is an accurate characterization.

 

Mary asked if there were any more topics for the call.

 

 

5. Attendance Update

We achieved quorum.

 

6. Adjournment

Shaheen made a motion to adjourn the call.

Mary seconded the motion.

The meeting was adjourned.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

 

anonymous morphed into Diego Matute

 

Gershon Janssen: +1 to the webinar; you can count me in for participation and willing to help prepare.

 

anonymous morphed into Suzanne Gonzales-Webb