[KI-LC] [WG-IDAssurance] Additional FOG Comments received

Shin_Adachi shin at adachi.us
Thu Sep 23 12:35:00 EDT 2010


Colin et al,

How can we balance or draw the line to keep accepting comments one after another, and get the doc completed, understanding the chance for next version?

Shin at mobile.  Pardon brevity & possible rudeness
携帯端末発とり急ぎお知らせのみ、御無礼御容赦。足立

On Sep 22, 2010, at 14:46, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz> wrote:

> Thanks Anna
> 
> Useful comments
> 
> I don't what the rest of you think, but I given the comments received, I wonder if it would be prudent to take around another review cycle after these comments have been incorporated.
> 
> Timing is everything in these things and I get the sense that with this Review co-inciding with the summer vacation, and a progressively improving and widening understanding of federation as the months roll by, we may end up with a better outcome that is not subject to very early revision if we take our time over it.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Colin
> 
>  
> 
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Anna Ticktin
> Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2010 8:22 a.m.
> To: LC
> Cc: IA WG
> Subject: [KI-LC] Additional FOG Comments received
> 
>  
> 
> Hello All―
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This message is to inform the LC that the staff has received the following comments
> 
>  t
> 
> o the IAWG Federation Operator Guidelines document.  
> 
> We expect the IAWG to review this comment immediately.
> 
> Please note the comment period was closed on 20 September 2010. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Selected Document: IAWG Federation Operator Guidelines
> 
> Comments: 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> General comment: I think the paper uses 'federation participant' and 'federation member' interchangeably.  This may need looking at.  
> 
> Line 85: would suggest this be downgraded to 'may'.  Not all federation operators are in the business of providing credentials - this is often specifically the role of its members / participants.
> 
> Line 132: not all federations will guarantee verification of 'identity', but will assure verification of assertion.  See section 6 of the UK federation Rules Of Membership for more detail.
> 
> Line 185: again, not all federations require this type of audit as a 'must' but as a reserve the right to audit.  Clarity needed here as to whether self-audit is included in the meaning of this sentence. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> [End of comments]
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ―> Anna Ticktin
> 
>        Technical Program Coordinator
>        anna at kantarainitiative.org
>        anna at ieee-isto.org
> 
>  
> 
> ====
> 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.
> ====
> _______________________________________________
> WG-IDAssurance mailing list
> WG-IDAssurance at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-idassurance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20100923/122b178f/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list