Richard, As per discussions which have been occurring in the Attribute Management Discussion Group (AMDG) during the development of their report to make recommendations on where focused effort from the Kantara Initiative might help move this space [attribute management] forward I am requesting, during the revision of the SAC, that the IAF glossary also be revisited. While the AMDG is primarily focussed on attributes I would suggest that all definitions in the glossary be reviewed for alignment with ITU X.1252. The AMDG would like to recommend the following definitions * Attribute - Information bound to a subject that specifies a characteristic of the subject. In other words, a property associated with an individual. * Identity - A representation of a subject in the form of one or more attributes that allow the subject or subjects to be sufficiently distinguished within context. For identity management (IdM) purposes, the term identity is understood as contextual identity (subset of attributes), i.e., the variety of attributes is limited by a framework with defined boundary conditions (the context) in which the entity exists and interacts. * Identification - The process of recognizing a subject by contextual characteristics. In other words, the process of using claimed or observed attributes of an individual to infer who the individual is. * Identity Proofing - A process which validates and verifies sufficient information to confirm the claimed identity of the subject. In other words, the process by which identity related information is validated so as to identify an individual with a degree of uniqueness and certitude sufficient for the purposes for which that identity is to be used. To the already existing definitions the AMDG would like to recommend the addition of the following terms to the Glossary: * Identity Attribute - Information bound to a subject identity that specifies a characteristic of the subject. * Identity Context - the environment or circumstances in which identity information is communicated and perceived. Individuals operate in multiple identity contexts (e.g., legal, social, employment, business, pseudononymous) and may identify themselves differently based on the context. * Authoritative Party - An organization or individual that is trusted to be an authority on the identity related attributes or roles associated with users and subjects of services. Ken Kenneth Dagg Senior Project Co-ordinator | Coordonnateur de projet supérieur Security and Identity Management | Sécurité et gestion des identités Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5 Kenneth.Dagg@tbs-sct.gc.ca Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-7041 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-954-6642 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-957-9090 Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada [cid:image001.gif@01CD08DC.62A2DBC0] ________________________________ From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of David L. Wasley Sent: March 22, 2012 9:26 PM To: Colin Wallis Cc: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report No - I don't believe KI should be bound to 800-63 regarding attributes WRT this report. 800-63 is almost entirely about credentials, not attributes. To the extent it want's attributes embedded in credentials (e.g. PKI) or available from CSPs in an assertion, that can be accommodated as a subset of the more general attribute set. In our experience with Federal apps, they do want a "name" but only to use as a salutation, not for access control. For access, we typically provide an opaque identifier, ideally one that is targeted specifically to the particular app. The hard part about attributes in general is defining the syntax and semantics (or dictionary and grammar) and what LOA means. David On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Colin Wallis wrote: +1 What Dave is implying, and Abbie is supporting (as am I on a personal basis but not necessarily the view of my employer) is that the KI definition is bound to 800-63 which is, err, outdated. If the AM DG Report was to be bound to the IAF in some way (like for example, the Privacy Assessment Criteria from P3 WG is bound to the IAF SACs and the Kantara and Federal Privacy Profiles) then outdated or not, we would need to align. But I'm not sure there is a strong reason why the AM DG Report should be bound to the IAF KI one, but happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Cheers Colin From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Barbir, Abbie Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 8:34 a.m. To: David L. Wasley; dg-am@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report Hi Agree and as such the itu definition is better suited since identity is defined as a collection of attributes We really need to standardize on the use of international definitions since ISO 29915 builds on x.1252 cheers From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of David L. Wasley Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:02 PM To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report Some background and a different perspective. The original IAF was developed from the original NIST 800-63. The notion of "identity" in 800-63 was basically "a name and something added to make it unique" which is where the definition Ken found came from. The world has moved quite far from that (naive) notion. In the identity federation with which I am most familiar (InCommon), we consider "identity attributes" to be potentially "anything that is true about a given entity." Identifiers, facts, preferences, etc. For example, "student" is an important attribute that supports access to services and resources restricted to "students." The basic set of attributes we use is defined in the eduPerson Object Class (http://middleware.internet2.edu/eduperson/). Another set of attributes that we have discussed but not implemented would provide information that can help a RP/SP display information to a user, for example "visually impaired" -->> "increase font size," or "color blind" or "deaf", etc. In this broader notion of "attribute" there are many different kinds: - some things are unique to the particular entity; others are shared with other entities - some are assigned by an SOA, e.g., passport number; others are self selected, e.g., nickname or display name. - some are transient, e.g., "student"; others are permanent and/or never reassigned, e.g., some identifiers. - the degree of authoritativeness of any attribute is determined by how it is acquired by the ISP and how current it is, etc. - not all attributes will be available from any one ISP, certainly not with the same degree of assurance - etc. We encourage RP/SPs to request the minimum set of attributes that they need in order make an access decision. David On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino wrote: Thanks Ken, OK so if we move away from ITU f, toward "Identity Attribute is information that contributes to establishing the identity (a unique name) of a single person?" Yes attributes can support a "higher level of authN" but also are related to authZ independent of or in combination with name or identifier. It depends on the attribute types, so might we expand this to include ".. contributes to establishing the identity (unique name) and "permissions/privileges/claims" of an individual" Not sure what the actual word is there and put these 3 in as example/suggestion. From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Dagg, Kenneth Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:56 PM To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Subject: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report I checked for the term Identity Attribute in the IAF Glossary and did not find it. As such, I did not send a note to the IAWG. However, the following terms are in the glossary: * Attribute - a property associated with an individual * Identity - a unique name for a single person. Because a person's legal name is not necessarily unique, identity must include enough additional information (for example, an address or some unique identifier such as an employee or account number) to make a unique name. * Identification - Process of using claimed or observed attributes of an individual to infer who the individual is. * Identity Proofing - The process by which identity related information is validated so as to identify a person with a degree of uniqueness and certitude sufficient for the purposes for which that identity is to be used. The AMDG report currently defines Identity Attribute as Information bound to a subject identity that specifies a characteristic of the subject. I suggest that this definition is not in alignment with the definitions contained in the IAF glossary. While I have nothing against the definitions contained in ITU-T X.1252 I would suggest that we remain consistent and aligned with KI definitions. I believe the following would be more aligned, "Identity Attribute is information that contributes to establishing the identity (a unique name) of a single person?" Comments? Or reasons not to use this definition (other than it's not the ITU definition)? BTW: I have updated the report. I added a glossary and some text about RP requirements. I also took the opportunity to align the recommendations at the start of the report with the recommendations at the end. Ken Kenneth Dagg Senior Project Co-ordinator | Coordonnateur de projet supérieur Security and Identity Management | Sécurité et gestion des identités Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5 Kenneth.Dagg@tbs-sct.gc.camailto:Kenneth.Dagg@tbs-sct.gc.ca Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-7041 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-954-6642 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-957-9090 Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada [rtfimage://] _______________________________________________ DG-AM mailing list DG-AM@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am ________________________________ This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited. Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law. The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing. ==== 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. ==== _______________________________________________ DG-AM mailing list DG-AM@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am
