[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes 29 September 2016 TC Call - UPDATED
Time: 4:30 PM EST (-0400 GMT) Tel: 1-712-775-7031 Access Code: 620-103-760 Minutes for 29 September 2016 TC Meeting I. Roll Call & Minutes Attendance Voting Members Hal Lockhart (Co-Chair) Bill Parducci (Co-Chair) Rich Levinson Steven Legg Martin Smith Members Richard Hill Quorum: YES. 5 of 5 (100%) per Oasis site Approve Minutes 15 September 2016 APPROVED II. Administrivia IDESG Draft Review Hal: | I posted drafts to the list. These assessments are the next step in getting XACMLv3 | accepted into the IDESG Standards Registry. Martin: IDESG coordinating committee met this morning. I presented this information to them. Their next meeting will be on the 27th of the October. It would be helpful if you could attend to answer questions. Assuming that the assessment is approved it goes to the Privacy Committee who sends back an written report. Once that has been addressed it moves to the final phase for approval. Hal: Let's close comments by the next TC call. This gives us 2 weeks and then IDESG has 2 weeks to review. Martin: Sounds good. III. Errata Status Richard: I posted an update to the list on the Errata. There are 6 items which I believe are in scope. 1 of them seemed to be de-scoped. Hal: Let's respond to this on the list. Martin: I don't think I saw the what should be returned in the way of relevant attributes list Hal: It was the list of applicable polices. I believe there is a wiki item. Richard: I will take another look at that. I believed that there was nothing to be done based upon a list discussion. I will review. NIST Draft on authentication (863-3) Martin: The "gituhb phase" has closed for comments. They will do some digestion then move to the conventional 60-90 day comment process. I suggested that they create 2 sets of attributes: one that defines a binding to physical attributes; the other that defines non-personal attributes. The comment was not accepted. Hal: In my experience it is difficult to get traction with these types of distinctions because there are typically use cases that work counter to it. Meeting adjourned.