...
Mike Vesey shared that IdRamp integrated biometrics into the work that they do that drove a conversation regarding biometrics and ToIP. He shared that they've been combining various technologies to illustrate how this works for identity assurance in multiple facets. He believes there is an opportunity for some synergy and wants to start driving this conversation to collect feedback and insights from the Steering Committee. Mike shared his screen to illustrate the Identity Providers and the new technology–Bouncer. He did a demo to illustrate how they utilize the tool, that works with Zoom, that has profiles that provides options for authentication from email verification to mobile app verification, then creating zoom meeting and demonstrated the url credential request for a verifiable email before you launch a meeting. They received feedback to include biometric file with credential request. He demonstrated the Authentic ID and used a pre-authentication verification. Wenjing Chu mentioned the AI Metaverse TF and the relationship with biometrics, he went through the stages of the authentication and shared that they transition into AI. He invited IDRamp to participate in the TF and affirmed that this is an important part for ToIP to engage and participate. Mike Vesey continued that we need to have a firm position on the topic for identity assurance to meet the needs of the market. Daniel Bachenheimer shared that he's excited to talk about this topic and shared that he does not align with the term identity assurance, but he agrees that we need to take a position on the topic because of the EU Digital Wallet. He shared that the identity wallet was designed for wallet agent to secure in and out of the identity wallet, but the spec now says that it will authenticate, before utilization and the biometric as a verifiable credential for offline share/disclose biometric in it. He believes these two realms for access and third party engagement as relevant and meaningful. Mike Vesey mentioned that we need to consider if these conversations warrant their own WG or TF and John Jordan mentioned that he agrees that we need to start discussing this in greater detail and determine our position on the topic. He also mentioned his appreciation for the presentation. Judith Fleenor mentioned that there are on-going discussions on where within the Foundation, this fits best. Drummond Reed agrees that this discussion is timely in that the TAWG is having on-going discussions that align with this topic and asked for Steering Committee recruitment and feedback in the efforts of the new draft that outline the requirements (ToIP Technology Architecture Specification Working Draft 03:Widget Connector
Drummond Reed mentioned that in the TSWG the topic was raised within the last couple of weeks; he believes that this is within the scope of the Metaverse TF, but recommended we identify a specific group for biometrics lives, he believes it can start as a TF unless there is enough interest to create a WG. Daniel Bachenheimer agrees and believes that maybe it would be better fit to live in the TSWG, rather than AIM. We want to assure we define where this fits in the architecture. Wenjing Chu agrees that this AIM may be too broad and that the Architecture would be a more focused discussion via a separate TF. Judith Fleenor shared that we need a TF to help offer directive for Biometrics so that they can better align and offer guidance for the the architecture to live. Judith Fleenor asked Daniel Bachenheimer to be a lead in this effort and he agreed, dependent on the charter and direction.
...