UMA telecon 2012-07-26
Date and Time
- WG telecon on Thursday, 26 July 2012, at 9am PT (time chart)
- Skype: +99051000000481
- US: +1-805-309-2350 (other international dial-in lines available) | Room Code: 178-2540
- Roll call
- Approve minutes of 2012-07-19 meeting
- AI review
- Discussion re "incubation phase" of UMA – end game?
- Binding Obligations next steps
- Spec progress, review, issues
New AI summary
AI: Eve: Look into the current UMA logo's trademark status and how logos could be used for positively declaring UMA conformance.
Quorum was not reached.
Approve minutes of 2012-07-19 meeting
Deferred due to lack of quorum.
Thomas, Sal, Eve
Capture business-oriented use cases.
Still open. Desperately needs to be done! In fact, we need to translate our use cases into the chosen design flows. We'd talked about producing an "UMA for Enterprise" document, and perhaps we should complement it with an "UMA for Individuals" doc.
|2012-07-12||Eve||Closed||Work on Binding Obligations comments.|
|2012-07-19-1||Thomas||Closed||Work on issue #61 editorial instructions.||In progress.|
|2012-07-19-2||Domenico||Open||Propose issue #57 "promissory claims" profile.||This might be layered on top of the OpenID Connect claim profile. In progress. Domenico has published a diagram showing how claims can be placed into a taxonomy. Eve suggests refining it to assume that the "requesting party" is always the AM, since "promissory claims" would be used in authorization.|
|2012-07-19-3||Eve||Open||Finally put feature tests on the OSIS wiki.||In progress. Eve's forthcoming OSIS edits will correspond nicely to Thomas's issue #61 edits. She's had some trouble with the wiki and is getting more help from Pam. In the meantime, she's writing up machine-readable feature tests offline.|
Discussion re "incubation phase" of UMA
We're rapidly approach the third anniversary of this WG's launch! And Kantara currently going through an effort to examine how its mission should be refined. We once again did a compare/contrast exercise on the various organizations where technical specs can be standardized.
Does UMA have "competition" in the space? We believe not, among standards. There are a number of proprietary and private efforts that seem to have an "UMA-shaped" problem space, and there's at least some interest among them to try UMA; among them, there has been some interest in OASIS as an eventual home (vs. IETF). If speed is important in encouraging adoption and experimentation, then OASIS as a new home seems to be an attractive possibility. Also, OASIS is comfortable to European audiences. Kantara's connection to trust frameworks is an interesting connection for us, and also, Dazza is working on a new OASIS group that is meant to standardize trust-framework-style "system rules", which would have worldwide implications.
For now, until we can discuss this in quorum and until we feel compelled to make a change, once again we'll stick with the status quo.
Binding Obligations next steps
Hasan may be working on a state diagram that reflects these obligations. Eve will experiment with adding clause annotations to the swimlane diagrams.
Being a "non-certified" UMA participant means that expectations should be pretty low. Are the Binding Obs a low enough bar? We want to be sure they're reasonable for "non-certified" deployers. Certification, circles of trust, and the rest of it would come into play in higher-order contracts (and maybe even laws).
Does UMA's logo have a trademark? We should resurrect this topic.
As of 12 July 2012 (pre-meeting), quorum is 6 of 11.
- Catalano, Domenico
- Hardjono, Thomas
- Maler, Eve
- Mohammed, Alam
- Hughes, Andrew
- Lizar, Mark
- Machulak, Maciej
- Moren, Lukasz