Page tree

Versions Compared


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



DRAFT Meeting Minutes - IAWG approval required

 NOTE: These meeting minutes also contain notes from December 6 2013 - a continuation of this meeting for discussion of the FICAM TFS update material.

Date and Time


  • Wilsher has floated the idea of publishing it as a report
  • Furr - OK with it as a report, not OK with including it within the IAF document
  • Wilsher - not actually a working document - it realigns 800-63-2 text and clarifies ambiguous items in 800-63-2. This document is intended to go back to NIST as input to a potential 800-63 update. Indicates where a US Federal Profile could be developed. The document should be made publicly available.
  • Frasier-MacElveen - that last reason is a good case to exclude it from the actual IAF - it should be a Report.
  • The document only deals with 800-63-2 - when Kantara IAF is assessed against the FICAM TFPAP the 800-63-2 is not actually in scope - the document might cause confusion at that time. 
  • The document is useful, should be publicly available, we appear to agree that it should be a Report.
  • Frasier-MacElveen - The Executive Summary appears to say that Kantara is providing advice/direction to Federal Agencies - we should not do this.
  • Wilsher: the Apologia covers how the document was created. The Executive Summary could simply be deleted.
  • Group suggests that the Apologia becomes the Executive Summary
  • This document is non-normative - assessors should not be using this for assessment. It is only for background information.
  • A CSP could choose to reference this document - this is not a Kantara requirement.
  • Wilsher to update and forward the document to IAWG for consideration.



FICAM TFS Program update comments from IAWG members - December 5 2013 meeting notes
  • RF: the ATOS seems to be making the CSPs into Attribute Providers - the current requirement is to only maintain core attributes - there seems to be an extension into a new set of attributes - this would increase costs, might knock smaller CSPs out of the running because they may not have the resources to deal with the extra attributes. 
  • RF: Anil John referenced ANSI/NASPO Section 6 
  • MF: Read it as an optional requirement - if they are available then provide the attributes, if not then no issue. 
  • RF: Verbal indications that the attribute provision is leaning towards mandatory provision (because the Federal Agencies might ask for them)
  • SS: There is a section in the RP Guidance on disambiguation of identities - it recommends that the agency goes to an attribute provider without any reference to LOAs.
  • CT: Anil mentioned that this set of attributes is needed for the RPs to perform account/identity disambiguation and linking to the right agency account
  • MF: most RPs don't identify their clients from these attributes - they know them by other information
  • RF: do the SAML assertions have to include the extra attribute data? If yes, then the CSP will have to capture and maintain the extra attributes.
  • SS: don't these attributes have to be collected and kept as proof of the ID Proofing process?
  • RF: yes. but they do an encrypted hash of the values
  • MF: But there are many attributes that are not currently collected
  • RF: The registration authority does not store the information - the Certificate Authority keeps it if they want to or need to.
  • SS: It appears that Verizon would meet the Bundle 1 requirements.


  • SS: If they are looking for verified attributes, then it has to be better defined.
  • MF: It is unclear if the attributes SHALL be sent if the CSP has them or if they are optional.
  • RW: Are we making the assumption that the RP will be dictating the attributes that the CSP will have to gather in the ID Proofing process? 
    • (RF: Yes) 
    • So, is this assumption correct? 
    • (RF: Vz reading is that if the RP asks for it, then the CSP pretty much has to provide it)
    • This needs clarification
  • RW: The requirements are stated in terms of what the RP must do. The implication that is not clearly stated is that the imposition on the RP becomes an implication on the CSP. This is essentially a profile imposed on 800-63-2 -> "these are the things needed to sufficiently define an 'identity'"
  • MF: consolidate Scott's item with Rich's item 
  • RW: There's also an issue with the footnote saying 'in order of preference' -> this implies that beyond the core attributes, it is not clear what weighting the additional attributes have (the core gets 96% certainty, so what do the others provide?)
  • RF: Danger is in who is interpreting this - CSP will see it one way, Federal RP will interpret differently.
  • RF: If adding Attribute Providers into the CSP process, it's possible that the price of the CSP services will rise which might become an inhibitor to RP uptake.
  • ALL: review comments that have been circulated so far for tomorrow's call


FICAM TFS Program update comments from IAWG members - December 6 2013 meeting notes




Carry-forward Items