Attendees
Co-Leads:
- Bryn Robinson-Morgan (Mastercard)
- Paco Garcia (Yoti)
ID2020 PM:
- Todd Gehrke
Participants:
- Stew Whitman
- Yoav Schlesinger
- Dan Bachenheimer
- John Garratt
- Scott Perry
- Kaliya
- Sid Mishra
- Sara Facchinetti
- Paul Murdock (Observer)
- – 20 mins
- – 15 mins
Agenda Items
| Time | Item | Who |
|---|---|---|
| 2 min | Anti-Trust Policy and Recording reminder given | Chair |
| 5 min | Introductions: (New participants (if any) only | Chair |
| 15 min | Key questions document: Contributors to share thoughts | All |
| 20 min | Key requirements: Agree 3 key requirements, and 30/60/180 day milestones for each | All |
| 15 min | Recommended solutions: Agree 3 actionable recommendations, and 30/60/180 day milestones for each | Chair |
| 3 | Wrap Up | Chair |
Presentations -
(PDFs posted)
Recording - Link
Notes
1. Welcome and Linux Foundation antitrust policy
Google Drive Share for Identity Binding https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LFF5ipUmE1moxjc9pzndMdyBlit-bm0e
Key Question on Identity Assurance Levels - What standard should we use?
- What are GHP compliant ecosystems? From an identity binding standpoint there will be different levels, we cannot dictate across the ecosystem.
- What would be compliant in various different scenarios?
- What are the standards of data reported in the credential?
- If there is no identity binding data in the credential, should the recommendation be that the verifier treats it at the lowest level? (Self-Asserted)
- Should we provide a mapping across recognized schemes? NIST, PCTF, TDIF, eIDAS, UK GPG, ISO/IEC 24760
- Next steps
Everyone should contribute to the documents:
Action Items
Action: Ensure we identify the interaction with the credential definition WG - the level of assurance should be included with the credential.
Action: Discuss with rules engine WG how different LoAs can be translated by the Verifier