This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Feburay 13, 2018 PSAF Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
*Minutes from January 23rd. Mike moved, Kathleen seconded approval. Minutes approved 7-0-0. | *Minutes from January 23rd. Mike moved, Kathleen seconded approval. Minutes approved 7-0-0. | ||
*NIB discussion - ballot level. Kathleen recommended going Normative as there isn’t anything to “trial” in a conceptual information/behavioral model. This is the position that the WG has taken in the past when balloting conceptual models. Also, the sooner this is on the normative track, the more impactful it will be in TEFCA discussions. Mike moved to ballot only Chapter 2, Volume 1 Trust Framework for Federated Authorization (TF4FA) conceptual information model as normative. Given short time line for submission of final ballot material by end of March and the multiple substantive changes to Volume 1, Mike recommended that the Volume 2 conceptual behavioral model be set aside until the May ballot comments are reconciled. If time permits, then a Volume 3 with informative guidance related to blockchain and audit may be included. Mike moved to ballot TF4FA Volume 1 during May 2018 and possibly an informative Volume 3. Jim Kretz seconded. Diana asked for clarification about why the Security and Privacy DAM was not being balloted. Mike reported that the decision at the January WGM to publish what he considers a flawed May 2014 DAM because it does not align with ISO 22600. Motion Approved 7-0-0. | *NIB discussion - ballot level. Kathleen recommended going Normative as there isn’t anything to “trial” in a conceptual information/behavioral model. This is the position that the WG has taken in the past when balloting conceptual models. Also, the sooner this is on the normative track, the more impactful it will be in TEFCA discussions. Mike moved to ballot only Chapter 2, Volume 1 Trust Framework for Federated Authorization (TF4FA) conceptual information model as normative. Given short time line for submission of final ballot material by end of March and the multiple substantive changes to Volume 1, Mike recommended that the Volume 2 conceptual behavioral model be set aside until the May ballot comments are reconciled. If time permits, then a Volume 3 with informative guidance related to blockchain and audit may be included. Mike moved to ballot TF4FA Volume 1 during May 2018 and possibly an informative Volume 3. Jim Kretz seconded. Diana asked for clarification about why the Security and Privacy DAM was not being balloted. Mike reported that the decision at the January WGM to publish what he considers a flawed May 2014 DAM because it does not align with ISO 22600. Motion Approved 7-0-0. | ||
| + | *NIB Substantive section discussion. Mike recommended removing any reference to SPIF,and replace with "Trust marks as policy definitions for the purpose of establishing interoperability." In addition add that this ballot simplifies this information model to address May 2017 ballot comments and to be compliant with ISO 22600. | ||
=='''Meeting Materials'''== | =='''Meeting Materials'''== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:43, 13 February 2018
Contents
Attendees
| . | Member Name | . | Member Name | . | Member Name | . | Member Name | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | John Moehrke Security Co-chair | x | Kathleen Connor Security Co-chair | . | Alexander Mense Security Co-chair | . | Trish Williams Security Co-chair | |||
| x | Christopher Shawn] Security Co-chair | x | Suzanne Gonzales-Webb | x | Mike Davis | x | David Staggs | |||
| . | Mohammed Jafari | . | Beth Pumo | . | Ioana Singureanu | . | Rob Horn | |||
| x | Diana Proud-Madruga | x | Francsico Jauregui | x | Joe Lamy | . | Galen Mulrooney | |||
| . | Paul Knapp | . | Grahame Grieve | . | Johnathan Coleman | . | Aaron Seib | |||
| x | Ken Salyards | . | Jim Kretz | . | Gary Dickinson | x | Dave Silver | |||
| . | Oliver Lawless | . | [1] | . | David Tao | . | Greg Linden |
Agenda
- (3 min) Roll Call, Agenda Approval
- (7 min) Review and Approval of Minutes Jan. 16th PSAF Minutes and Jan. 23rd
- (50 min) Security and Privacy Domain Analysis Model updatesFocus on NIB preparation for TF4FA Ballot May 2018 Mike Davis, Chris Shawn, and Kathleen Connor. Goal is to finalize NIB submission for Feb 25th deadline.
- Commenters please us complete reconciliation of the May 2017 TF4FA ballot so that we can progress. Please send us withdrawals or declarations that you do not wish to withdraw your negatives.
Minutes
- Chris Shawn chaired
- Minutes from January 16th. Kathleen moved, Mike seconded approval. Minutes approved 7-0-0.
- Minutes from January 23rd. Mike moved, Kathleen seconded approval. Minutes approved 7-0-0.
- NIB discussion - ballot level. Kathleen recommended going Normative as there isn’t anything to “trial” in a conceptual information/behavioral model. This is the position that the WG has taken in the past when balloting conceptual models. Also, the sooner this is on the normative track, the more impactful it will be in TEFCA discussions. Mike moved to ballot only Chapter 2, Volume 1 Trust Framework for Federated Authorization (TF4FA) conceptual information model as normative. Given short time line for submission of final ballot material by end of March and the multiple substantive changes to Volume 1, Mike recommended that the Volume 2 conceptual behavioral model be set aside until the May ballot comments are reconciled. If time permits, then a Volume 3 with informative guidance related to blockchain and audit may be included. Mike moved to ballot TF4FA Volume 1 during May 2018 and possibly an informative Volume 3. Jim Kretz seconded. Diana asked for clarification about why the Security and Privacy DAM was not being balloted. Mike reported that the decision at the January WGM to publish what he considers a flawed May 2014 DAM because it does not align with ISO 22600. Motion Approved 7-0-0.
- NIB Substantive section discussion. Mike recommended removing any reference to SPIF,and replace with "Trust marks as policy definitions for the purpose of establishing interoperability." In addition add that this ballot simplifies this information model to address May 2017 ballot comments and to be compliant with ISO 22600.
