Child pages
  • UMA telecon 2020-10-22

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Policy Manager draft - review text


The one needed field is to specify the required values in order to achieve interoperability. Alec's first attempt at an example is for something like a Google Doc Share button for Comment access. The second example starts to get hairy. In specifying required claims, how long can we avoid starting to define a "minimum viable required claims language" for ROs to use that "doesn't need to look like a policy language"?

In the solutions with which Identos has deployment experience, how much flexibility does the RO really need? Not much, because the community AS sort of manages to limit the options in a reasonable manner given the actual community. The APIs and scopes are fixed, the packages of client requests are fixed, and so what the clients can get access to is fixed, and in their specific case, 


As of October 22, 2020 (pre-meeting), quorum is 7 6 of 11. (Michael, Karim, Domenico, Mike, Peter, Sal, Gaurav, Thomas, Andi, Maciej, Eve)

  1. Michael
  2. Peter
  3. tbsEve

Non-voting participants:

  1. tbsAlec
  2. Scott
  3. Kate
  4. Anik


  • Andi