June 1st, 2010 Security Conference Call

Security Working Group Meeting

Back to Security Main Page

Attendees

• Steven Connolly
• Mike Davis Security Co-chair
• Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair
• Rob Horn
• Michelle Johnston
• Jim Kretz
• John Moehrke Security Co-chair
• Milan Petkovic
• Pat Pyette
• Ioana Singureanu
• Richard Thoreson CBCC Co-chair
• Serafina Versaggi scribe
• Tony Weida
• Craig Winter

Agenda

1. (05 min) Roll Call, Approve minutes 25 May 2010, Call for additional agenda items & Accept Agenda
2. (55 min) Composite Security & Privacy DAM Ballot Reconciliation - continue addressing outstanding comments from the ballot.
   • This is the latest version of the spreadsheet as of 5/25 with the Rio informal disposition comments added

• Ongoing Projects
• PASS Audit Update
• US Realm Value Sets

Minutes

3. Updates/Discussion

Composite Security and Privacy DAM Ballot Reconciliation

---

Ballot reconciliation resumed focused on the comments submitted by participants in today’s WG meeting (Reviewed: Suzanne Gonzales-Webb & John Moehrke)

---

• The group resolved to vote on the dispositions agreed to during today’s and last week’s meeting, since a formal vote on last week’s comments was not taken at the close of the meeting

---

• Item 40: John requested that the Work Group re-open discussion around balloting this Domain Analysis Model (DAM) as Normative (DSTU) rather than Informative.
  • The DAM is an Information Model, and as such, is something thing informs Normative specifications, it is not something that to claim conformance against.
  • John’s request is to re-open the discussion as to whether the DAM is something vendors or products can claim conformance to or something that informs other specifications that vendors or products can claim conformance to.
    • Ioana: There is nothing that can be done in the ballot reconciliation process to address this comment (why it was (originally) deemed Not Related). The way to address this comment is to present it to the TSC as an action item and lobby for the ballot to be changed from DSTU to Informative.
    • Pat has no objection balloting the DAM as DSTU if there are conformance points identified in the document, addressing the Normative issue. Pat wasn’t sure whether there is anything currently in the DAM that is meets a conformance point so it is appropriate to open up the discussion in this group. There may be something missing in the DAM that identifies this as Normative.
    • Mike agreed with Pat’s comment, which will be taken as a comment and become This part of the on-going work of this DSTU.
    • The disposition was changed to Persuasive with Mod. The proposed resolution is to add a conformance section to the DAM
    • John disagreed with this proposal, and instead wants the DAM to be re-balloted as Informative.
    • Mike re-iterated that the intent of the DAM has always been to ballot this as Normative starting with DSTU. This was presented to the TSC. Pat’s suggestion is correct – the DAM needs conformance points.
    • John disagreed with the disposition. A note was taken to re-open the question whether the DAM should be re-balloted as Informative in a future release of this DSTU.