I'm interested in contributing to this comment and a session at IIW. Adrian On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
My view on this remains “to increase privacy get rid of brokers”. A full mesh SAML or PKI federation is untenable, so that’s why we’ve deployed brokers in the past. But OIDC, with dynamic client registration and server discovery, is built for this. I believe wee need to move towards this model.
Is anyone interested in writing up a response to that effect with me? Perhaps we could run a session on it at IIW this week for those of us that will be there (including myself).
— Justin
On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi UMAnitarians - not sure if you've seen this notice yet
I'm vice-chair of IAWG & we are probably going to assemble comments on this.
"Privacy-Enhanced Identity Brokers"
Comments to inform a new collaborative project & eventual 1800 series Practice Guide at the NIST NCCoE
Due 18 December
http://www.nist.gov/itl/acd/ncce/20151022privacy.cfm
*Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP Independent Consultant *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
-- Adrian Gropper MD PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/