[KI-LC] Action Item 6b - United Identities (UI) paper - are we interested? - LC call 4th August

Colin Wallis Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
Wed Aug 18 19:00:19 EDT 2010


Many thanks Jeff

All good points - many of which were raised in discussions over the draft and often not completely resolved with the justification something like "lots of details to work out later for those that buy into the general thrust and concept of what we want to do.."

I'll give you my personal 2c worth on your questions below..

Cheers
Colin

From: j stollman [mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 1:17 a.m.
To: Colin Wallis
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council Kantara
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Action Item 6b - United Identities (UI) paper - are we interested? - LC call 4th August

Colin,

I am pleased to see that the concept of an independent, high-assurance IdP is gathering support.  They have a long row to hoe before I would be willing to commit support to this particular effort.

The sticking points for me are the following:

 1.  What assurance level(s) is UI intending to support?
<<CW: Level 2 and 3 is my guess>.

 1.  What breeder documents would be used to create a high-assurance identity?  How universal would be the acceptance of a high-assurance identity based on these documents?
<<CW: Oh yes..I forget how many times this came up..:-) I got the impression UI would leverage ID proofing processes used by banks, maybe CC companies, in trying to find a globally acceptable ID Proofing process. I know one could debate that one..>>

 1.  What processes would be implemented to keep UI from being undermined by fraudsters seeking to leverage UI to create counterfeit identities?
<<CW: We didn't really get into this beyond what any IdP might do regards best practice, but it's a valid point>>

 1.  What data on the individuals used to grant/maintain a UI high-assurance ID would be retained by UI and how would it be protected?.
<<CW: Same answer as (3) above , but it's another 'Crown Jewells' question and one with 'architectural approach' innuendo.  'Not centralised' is about as far as any implications out of the discussion went.>>

 1.  How will UI address the overlapping and conflicting regulatory constraints imposed by the various jurisdictions across which UI's identities are likely to be used?
<<CW: as per (2) it was raised many times, with no clear resolution.  But there was an idea of having a US based IdP and an EU based IdP with the idea that other jurisdictions might align more or less behind one of those, but again, a question left for later..>>
These concerns are the common issues for any IdP, but they become more critical because of UI's intent of providing a high-assurance ID.  Until these issues are addressed, my confidence in UI's ability to succeed is limited.
<<CW: Fair enough and that's really the objective of starting this thread. What is our view of UI's ability to succeed? Because presumably KI doesn't want to expend resources on something that has absolutely no hope of success (despite KI's best efforts in terms of expertise etc).  So are the issues surmountable? And if they were, is KI OK to take the risk on what we think are the likely odds of success>>.
Thank you.

Jeff
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz<mailto:Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz>> wrote:
Greetings all

Armed with the Minutes of the last meeting, I am now working through some actions.

Many of you are aware of this work to a greater or lesser extent, and you'll see some familiar names:-)

Kantara is mentioned specifically.

So this email is to ask you to review the proposal outlined in this paper, and respond to the list with your view on whether Kantara is interested to take this forward (should UI approach Kantara of course).

Thanks in advance for your input.

Cheers
Colin



====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc



--
Jeff Stollman
stollman.j at gmail.com<mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
1 202.683.8699

====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20100819/553e2a68/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list