Draft meeting minutes Mar 9, 2017

[Mohammad Jafari <mjafari@edmondsci.com>]

Minutes for 9 Mar 2017 TC meeting.

Meeting started at 1:00 pm EST.

**Attendance:
Mohammad Jafari, Chair (VHA)
Kathleen Connor (VHA)
Mike Davis (VHA)
Duane DeCouteau (VHA)
Chris Shawn (VHA)

Chair: We have quorum.

**Administrivia:
- Approval of the last meeting minutes from 8/5/2015:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xspa/201508/msg00001.html
Unanimously approved.

- Chair reported to the TC that the formalities for the last comment resolution process was conducted with OASIS on 3/8/2016:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xspa/201603/msg00000.html

- Chair: Since the TC has started a new round of activities, we need to agree on a schedule for meetings: 
The TC agrees to meet at same time bi-weekly. 

Mike requested to have another meeting next week in order to expedite the work on the SAML profile. 
The TC agreed. 

** SAML Profile:
- The latest draft is available at: 
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xspa/document.php?document_id=57755

The following issues are outstanding:
- Verifying the correctness of OIDs for normative value-sets for the US realm (needs peer review).
Kethleen agrees to double-check the OID. Chair will follow up with her.

- The question whether to include two separate attributes "supported-obligations" and "supported-refrains" or keep them merged into a single attribute "supported-caveats" considering the conceptual similarity and potential overlap of attribute value sets. The use-case for this attribute needs to be clarified and articulated.
Mike agreed that these are very similar attributes and can be combined.
Kathleen: the value sets are actually not the same and have different OIDs. 
Mohammad: if the value sets are different we should probably keep them separate. 
The TC agreed to keep these attributes separate.

- The question whether the "CD pointer" attribute should remain in the specs, as some members suggested that the stakeholders may no longer need this attribute. Moreover, if CD pointer attribute is to stay, should the CD type be specified as a separate attribute or does the URL, or the metadata of the data object, suffice for specifying the protocol and type/format?
Kathleen: if we keep it as an optional, it will help with some use cases.
Mike: it doesn't hurt to keep it.
Mohammad: Let's keep it and wait for comments in the public review.
Duane: we need the URL, the protocol, and resource type in order for this resource to be fetch-able.
Mohammad: The issue, then, is what value sets to use for document types and protocol.
Mike: we can avoid standardizing the value set for now.
Kathleen: I will look into this to see if there is any standard value set we can refer to.       

- There seems to be a need for providing a mapping to encode the attributes as OpenID Claims.
Mohammad: this will be just a non-normative note on how to encode these attribute assertions in the form of OpenID Claims. 
Mike and Duane agree.

Chair will update the draft and the TC will reconvene next week at the same day and time.

Adjourned at 1:35 pm EST.