This e-mail and its attachments may contain VonVictor Valentino Rosenchild proprietary information, which is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, or subject to COPYRIGHT belonging to VonVictor Valentino Rosenchild. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may be UNLAWFUL. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank you.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Heather Flanagan <hlflanagan@internet2.edu> wrote:

Who is interested in attributes? - Notes from the ISOC Identity Ecosystem Working Group Open Groups defining standards / schemas / frameworks

OIX Attribute Exchange: only having its first meeting this week .
IETF: ABFAB.
MACE-DIR / eduperson / SHAC.

More closed defining standards / schemas / frameworks

ITU SG 17 U10: open to liaison with experts on board and open to members.
ISO.

These are possibly at a higher level than attribute schema.

Discussion / implementation groups:

Kantara Attribute Discussion Group.
REFEDS Attribute Release.
Other.
SCIM.
eID initiatives.

Problem areas

Sharing across the groups

it is difficult to share across where information is closed off by non-release before final / copyright / behind closed doors. The earlier in the process you share work, the easier interoperability is later. Where is convergence?
How are we ensuring that the correct feedback is being created when outputs / schemas / proposals are coming out of these groups? Is Kantara the feature for this?

Solutions:

making John Bradley be the lynch-pin.
use existing discussion groups – Kantara is the obvious place.
Go out to all the places having discussions – unscaleable.

What is the “internet of things” attribute schema?

MIBS (++).
Attributes of things as well as attributes of people.
Devices – as identity consumers as well as having identities themselves. Is device identity more a projection of personal identity?
Too much, too many, too patchy.
Collision-resistant namespaces - the OpenID Connect approach.

Solutions:

A simple way to design attribute schema.
Attribute registry?
Things that don’t assume that there will be one of every type.
Agreement around extensibility.
IANA?
Context provider – in what context can I use this context?

Where does the conversation about this happen? Who operates an attribute registry? We need real participants who will benefit from this.

Fostering Implementation

Developing the business case, putting time and effort in to adoption of what we have now.

Discussions to be had around what is the right scope to put around the structure of attributes – filtering, flexibility, assertion.

Solutions:

????

Unclear spaces

Language code – still not a coherent way to express preferred language.
Solutions:

write up an RFC on problematic points?

OVERALL ACTION: Give these notes to OIX and Kantara
_______________________________________________
DG-AM mailing list
DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am