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

Richard G. WILSHER (Zygma) RGW at Zygma.biz
Thu Sep 23 12:56:36 EDT 2010

Or let’s take another angle on it - is there anyone crying out for this to
be finished so that they can actually apply it, which might make haste
justified, or is there time to breath, and if so, how many breaths before it
must be concluded in an implementable form?



Richard G. WILSHER
the Zygma partnership LLC
Office:                 +1 714 965 99 42
Mobile (USA):    +1 714 797 99 42
Mobile (Eur):     +44 77 68 05 41 58
 <mailto:RGW at Zygma.biz> RGW at Zygma.biz
 <BLOCKED::http://www.Zygma.biz> www.Zygma.biz


From: wg-idassurance-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:wg-idassurance-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: 23 September 2010 16:35
To: Colin Wallis
Cc: LC; Anna Ticktin; IA WG
Subject: Re: [WG-IDAssurance] [KI-LC] Additional FOG Comments received

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

Shin at mobile.  Pardon brevity & possible rudeness


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.




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
Subject: [KI-LC] Additional FOG Comments received

Hello All窶・/span>

This message is to inform the LC that the staff has received the following


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


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]

窶・gt; Anna Ticktin

       Technical Program Coordinator
        <mailto:anna at kantarainitiative.org> anna at kantarainitiative.org
        <mailto:anna at ieee-isto.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20100923/4c8f53e0/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the LC mailing list