Minutes 29 September 2016 TC Call

[William Parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

Time: 4:30 PM EST (-0400 GMT)
Tel: 1-712-775-7031
Access Code: 620-103-760

Minutes for 29 September 2016 TC Meeting

I. Roll Call & Minutes
 Attendance
 Voting Members
  Hal Lockhart (Co-Chair)
  Bill Parducci (Co-Chair)
  Rich Levinson
  Steven Legg
  Martin Smith

 Members
  Richard Hill

 Quorum: YES. 5 of 5 (100%) per Oasis site

 Approve Minutes 15 September 2016
  APPROVED
  

II. Administrivia
 IDESG Draft Review
  Hal:
   I posted drafts to the list. These are the first steps toward moving to a nomination.
  Martin:
   IDESG coordinating committee met this morning. I presented this information to them.
   Their next meeting will be on the 27th of the October. It would be helpful if you could
   attend to answer questions. Assuming that the assessment is approved it goes to the 
   Privacy Committee who sends back an written report. Once that has been addressed it 
   moves to the final phase for approval.
  Hal:
   Let's close comments by the next TC call. This gives us 2 weeks and then IDESG has 2 
   weeks to review.
  Martin:
   Sounds good.

III. 
  Errata Status
   Richard:
    I posted an update to the list on the Errata. There are 6 items which I believe are in
    scope. 1 of them seemed to be de-scoped.
   Hal:
    Let's respond to this on the list.
   Martin:
    I don't think I saw the what should be returned in the way of relevant attributes list
   Hal:
    It was the list of applicable polices. I believe there is a wiki item.
   Richard:
    I will take another look at that. I believed that there was nothing to be done based 
    upon a list discussion. I will review.

  NIST Draft on authentication (863-3)
   Martin: 
    The "gituhb phase" has closed for comments. They will do some digestion then move to 
    the conventional 60-90 day comment process. I suggested that they create 2 sets of 
    attributes: one that defines a binding to physical attributes; the other that defines 
    non-personal attributes. The comment was not accepted.
   Hal:
    In my experience it is difficult to get traction with these types of distinctions 
    because there are typically use cases that work counter to it. 

Meeting adjourned.