TFS Monthly Sync – Draft Meeting Notes
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Ken Dagg, IAWG Chair
Erick Runeson, NIXU
James Clark, ARB member
Jeffrey Tackes, USPS
Lee Aber, ID.me
Ray Kimble, KUMA
Mark Hapner, Resilient
Russ Weiser, Zentry
Bradley Owens, Deloitte
Nathaniel Jones, Deloitte
Scott Shorter, KUMA
Andrew Hughes, LC Chair
Kathy Massucci, Symantec
Boris Konrod, Athenahealth
Scott Perry, Scott Perry
Denny Prvu, IAWG Secretary
Richard Wilsher, Zygma
Matt Muller, Inflection Risk Solutions
Kurt Zander, Zentry
Mike Garcia, NIST
David Temoshok, NIST
Chi Hickey, FICAM
Tom Barton, Incommon
Kevin Morooney, Incommon
Colin Wallis, KI
Ruth Puente, KI
- It was published the standard for the multifactor authentication interoperability profile. An Incommon WG developed this profile and it had a global process under REFEDS.
- The 2 assurance profiles, which are responsive of research and education organizations needs and concluded the consultation process.
- Comments on 800-63-3
- Working with IDESG on the CSP Registry.
- IAWG has a new Confluence wiki space.
- Consent information group released Consent Receipt version 1.
- IRM is close to release the public report.
- Federation Interoperability Group has updated SAML2 INT profile.
- Working on certification and updating procedures for the trust services program. They merged PKI and TFS Programs in the documentation.
- The SoP is under final internal review and it may be ready for community feedback by middle of July. They are incorporating the changes suggested by OMB and NIST.
- 800-63-3 is in final internal review process and extremely close to final release. The implementation of the new guidelines is one year after its publication date.
- It was commented that 800-63-A does not list what would be fair evidence, such as credit card or other items that will constitute acceptable evidence. It was pointed out that we also should consider what the solution is capable of validating.
- TFPs should work on the list of acceptable evidence to comply with FICAM requirements.
- NIST commented that agencies should be doing the necessary to balance minimization of data. Definition of attributes is not NIST responsibility. It was stressed that NIST role is to provide characteristics of acceptable types of evidence but not state them.
- FICAM clarified that they would not define those bundles; they will revise and evaluate the TFPs proposals on how and why certain artifacts will ensure compliance with 800-63-3.