[KI-LC] Please be sure to attend the LC Call this Wednesday - IAWG approved Additional Criteria

Bob Pinheiro kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Tue Jan 31 23:21:32 EST 2012


My comments:

Line 5:  Should it be "US Federal Privacy Profile"?

The first sentence in the Abstract (lines 17 - 19) is confusing and not 
grammatically correct.  [This sentence is also repeated in lines 57 - 
59.] Perhaps this sentence could be changed to "This document specifies 
additional criteria for CSPs that desire certification under the IAF for 
interoperation with US Federal Agency applications under the Open 
Government program."

Line 25 refers to an Applicant Identity Provider, and line 109 to an 
Identity Provider.   For consistency throughout, should these be changed 
to "CSP"?

Line 26 - 27 refers to "US Federal Government Privacy Additional 
Criteria of the Identity Assurance Framework."  Is this the correct name 
of the document?

The link given in line 30 appears to be broken.

Line 61: Change "This additional criteria is" to "These additional 
criteria are..."

Bob


On 1/30/2012 9:46 PM, Palmer, Pete wrote:
>
> Hi LC Members,
>
> Please be sure to attend this week's LC call.  It is also important 
> that you review the attached document.  ICAM is anxiously awaiting 
> this document(see Anna's note below).Thanks!
>
> -Pete
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *Anna Ticktin <annaticktin at me.com <mailto:annaticktin at me.com>>
>
> *Date: *26January2012 11:21:42 AM PST
>
> *To: *LC <lc at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:lc at kantarainitiative.org>>
>
> *Cc: *Lara Zimberoff <lara.zimberoff at apenimed.com 
> <mailto:lara.zimberoff at apenimed.com>>
>
> *Subject: IAWG approved Additional Criteria:*
>
> Hello there-
>
> Attached is the final approved version of IAWG's _Additional Criteria: 
> US Federal Privacy Profile v2.0_.
>
> /(This is virtually the same document that had been put forth a few 
> times over the fall for LC ratification as a recommendation, but it 
> was sent back to the IAWG do be "re-versioned" and downgraded to 
> report status./)
>
> As this profile is eagerly anticipated by our friends at ICAM, we ask 
> that LC members please review this brief document and come prepared to 
> either further discuss or approve it on next week's call, 1 Feb 2012. 
> With that, I hope that all voting members will be able to dial-in and 
> address this as a priority on the agenda.
>
> Many thanks for your assistance.
>
> We look forward to having you on the call next Wednesday!
>
> Regards.
>
> ---> Anna Ticktin
>
> anna at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:anna at kantarainitiative.org>
> anna at ieee-isto.org <mailto:anna at ieee-isto.org>
>
> --
>
> Pete Palmer | Director, Information Security | Surescripts
>
> O: 651.855.3034 | C: 612.598.4444 |pete.palmer at surescripts.com
>
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain 
> sensitive information, and are intended solely for the individual to 
> whom this e-mail is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in 
> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail immediately and 
> destroy all copies of the e-mail and any attachments.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20120131/5c7637d1/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list