[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes from October 15th call
Minutes for the meeting of the Electronic Identity Credential Trust Elevation Methods (Trust Elevation) Technical Committee October 15, 2015. 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 - y Andrew Hughes - y Anil Saldhana, Red Hat Bob Sunday Brendan Peter, CA Carl Mattocks, Bofa Cathy Tilton, Daon Charline Duccans, DHS Duane DeCouteau Calvin Colin Wallis, New Zealand Government - y Dale Rickards, Verizon Business David Brossard, Axiomatics Dazza Greenwood Debbie Bucci, NIH Deborah Steckroth, RouteOne LLC Detlef Huehnlein, Federal Office for Information Diana Proud-Madruga - y Diego Matute, Centrify Don Thibeau, Open Identity Exchange - y Doron Cohen, SafeNet Doron Grinstein, BiTKOO Gershon Janssen - y Ilene Bridges Ivonne Thomas, Hasso Plattner Institute Jaap Kuipers, Amsterdam James Clark – Oasis Jeff Broburg, CA Jeff Shultz , NIST Jim Macabe (Kaiser) John Bradley John "Mike" Davis, Veteran's Affairs John Tolbert - y 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 Orlando Adams Peter Alterman, SAFE-BioPharma - y Peter Jones - Rainer Hoerbe - Rebecca Nielsen, Booz Allen Hamilton Rich Furr Rick Grow 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 Patrick, Axiomatics Steve Olshansky We achieved quorum. 2. Agenda review and approval We used the following chat room for the call: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/trust-el The agenda was approved. 3. Approval of the Minutes Mary asked for a motion to approve the minutes of September 17. John made the motion. Andrew seconded it. There were no objections. The minutes were approved. 4. Editors Update Andrew uploaded working draft5 of deliverable 4 to the TC directory. He would like to consider it the final working draft. What would the TC like to do? Don asked is there a consensus amongst the editors? Andrew replied that the editors haven’t had the discussion yet. That would be a good idea. We have everyone but Peter and Abbie on this call. Don asked is there an editor call scheduled. Andrew replied in a week. This would be a great time for the TC to do a detailed review. There are unlikely to be major changes at this point. So any proof reading or comments would be timely. His understanding for a path forward is once it is locked down, the TC would move to approve conversion of the document to a committee draft and send it out for 30 day public review to make it an approve committee spec document. So the TC call in two weeks could be a good TC call to put that motion on the floor. Does that sound right? John said it takes a while to bring something out for public review. He suggested doing private review during public review period. Andrew commented that one technicality is the document use to make a motion on has to be final. For example, we can’t change the contributors section after the TC approves it. So it we can use the editors call to get consensus, we can lock down the last couple of points. He doesn’t anticipate material changes. Diana has an HL7 security work group request. Last week there was an HL7 work group meeting in Georgia. There is a report-out on other SDOs. She brought out the trust-el work and there was significant interest expressed by several of the security folks. They would very much like to see what we have put together. Is it ok to send out this latest draft to the HL7 security group? Andrew responded so the question is, do we wait or send them this draft. Diana responded that she thinks they would be good with waiting for the public review period. Unless you see why they shouldn’t get an advanced copy, I think we stand a better chance of getting good comments from them if we give them more time. Andrew asked for editor feedback. Mary said she is ok with giving them something sooner rather than later. Shaheen said we may need to realign the sequence diagram with the previous deliverable. Andrew said the sequence diagram appears in deliverable 3. Can you help me with figuring out how to represent it? There has been a minor shift in the terms. Shaheen replied remember the editors agreed on a way of approach. Should we update the previous deliverable? If we go with the agreed upon approach, we should revise the previous version. Peter commented that we agreed that we would probably have to do that at some point. Andrew responded so we should make the deliverable 4as it should be, then at some point review the deliverable 3. Andrew asked are there any other things we need to deal with in the document, or are we ok with using the next editors call to get consensus, and then make a motion at the next TC call? Peter replied I think probably so. We just need to make the last revisions. Then we should be prepared to take it forward. Andrew responded OK, we will take that path. I will make the final updates. I do have a question in the appendix there is a section on contributors. I need to know that the contributors list is complete. I listed names I remembered. If anyone could send me additional names, that would help. I need instruction on what the list of TC member is. Is it our roster or voting roster? Peter said historically what goes in there is the contributors and editors. Abbie said there are two lists: contributors and the TC. Andrew proposed so perhaps the TC list is the non-observer list. Abbie recommended we ask Chet. We don’t want to lose people who left the TC when they changed jobs. Then there are others such as Eve. This can only be done by people actively looking for people we forgot. Mary offered her full attendance list. *** Mary took an action item to send Andrew an historical list of attendees (including those no longer members. *** Andrew will ask Chet about the list process, and review the list for people who have left or are not currently members. He will take a week to do this. Andrew asked if there were any further questions. He mentioned a NIST workshop on January 12-13 on applying quantification analysis to AuthN methods. Andrew will send an announcement to the list. Peter said he coauthored a paper on this in 2004. No more business. 5. Adjourn Don asked for a motion to adjourn. Abbie moved to adjourn the meeting. Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anonymous morphed into don thibeau anonymous morphed into Gershon Janssen Andrew Hughes: no webex this week Diana Proud-Madruga: OK Diana Proud-Madruga: Just want to confirm that the agreement is that I can send the current version to the HL7 Security WG members... Andrew Hughes: Diana: yes you can send it - and we will collect comments in the Public Review period which should start in a few weeks anonymous morphed into Cilon_NZ Cilon_NZ morphed into Colin_NZ don thibeau1: http://www.nist.gov/itl/applying-measurement-science-in-the-identity-ecosystem-nstic.cfm don thibeau1: Peter and I live nearby and can represent Andrew Hughes: and this one: http://www.nist.gov/nstic/events.html Andrew Hughes: I plan to attend the Workshop as well don thibeau1: i move to adjourn zales-Webb: nothing is being shared today |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]