Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures

Chris Drake <> Fri, 24 November 2017 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619251294BC for <>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:49:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.822
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_IADB_DK=-0.095, RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS=-0.235, RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF=-0.059, RCVD_IN_IADB_UT_CPR_MAT=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED=-2.2, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Upfu9v9KA_aA for <>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D2F129467 for <>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CWT/DCE) with ESMTP id vAO3nPlN020061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:49:27 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=20131023; t=1511495370; bh=ovlgbsy7Uez4AFXMFW1saPSSh14HkNHaucTpctKxs+0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=f8X/mbh2xYMwXkJVUrTa/0SikSHYLJFPzQWxvWPwQgYnQJuSrz20hYMN40MF9titY Fw+4PwqEakybVOZbNIgXrbuAYxiNA3zzARTypGVEiL8Ri/bX/5tqjSxvTwurtjrzTH 7RmxoK0d6iIVQido6ZKkvdgApMGvrBax+6KfaFqvOrsEFDEkZuAvQhfTS/EGC6UXBK lMNHjYWf8VO7er8jxZgK/svPc2IEGjQWwTtNC5g+h9ttu6KdC1DBhO+WNSPuzhZQiG en8Kcjr90HoarOfaRRbgjVOQa5j1ojqI/duLybxpxkezX7MNK7HcVK+inx0kMrePBV XQazbSkL9w6qw==
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 13:49:26 +1000
From: Chris Drake <>
Message-ID: <>
To: "Grassi, Paul A. (Fed)" <>, Phil Hunt <>
CC: John Bradley <>, Leif Johansson <>, Justin Richer <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>, <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------122183124033FD683"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrBLMWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsXS3XTyta79DPEog+/beSxOr97NbLHh2ktW iwW9W5ktlvfLWSyY38husfruXzaLhp8PWB3YPZYs+cnk0XTmKLPHtZN/WT0+Pr3F4rHrxmMW j72b+tg9bt/eyBLAHiUYoRuekVmSmpNZXGKlEBIU6pogmPH+432WgraKilW7P7A0MB7O6GLk 5BASSJK48u8ScxcjFweLwCYWiS97rjOCJFgEVCVm/t3GAmKzCehL/Ho/CSzOK2Au8ebjcXaI Zj2Jyb9esnYxcnCICIRJzDteBhJmFmhnlDjUEAhiCwsoSTyc/oYJxOYUsJFYs/UXK8guIYH9 zBLvz/5hg5gpKHFy5hMWiGYfiQfP1zNPYOSdhSQ1C0lqASPTKkbB4tz04gK94oLE3KrEAr3k /NxNjMDwrGdgYNzB2NQWdohRgINRiYd3xzWxKCHWxLLiytxDjEwcnJcYzThYhPiLK4vjE3Ny 8svjU3MTM3OEWPLy81KlhHkZGRgYhHgKUotyM0vii0pzUothsSTVwMjM1f/ul4eKs7u1MFNQ eebbM7UaRz1X3nvWe37dkRKFpQ/Cf8hZik5/Nu/waTnLv3KxVaXKFglejzmjTs7j/abSaxEo e3pLl4DOw2OVk1P7Gb/8KLmreH72xaoNv9UPHJaWeOQk9sZc/cy/YNl3RjtVTmdsqOUSmRH+ ZmlVuWR/mHOUZP3U+0osxRmJhlrMRcWJAI4lKzZLAgAA
X-Whitelist: TRUE
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 06:35:27 -0800
Subject: Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Vectors of Trust discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:56:35 -0000


I'm on the side of "get it right".  OpenID swept a similar range of topics into the "out of scope" basket, which rendered their first standard so unusable they had to come back and do a second one.

Lets at least learn from history, and build something *effectively useable* out of the gate.

You can't drive unsafe or inappropriate cars on any roads, let alone in a SAML lane.  Nobody cares *how* it goes wrong, they just care that it did - so it's our job to look ahead and watch out for those obstacles now; rather than shroud them in SEP.

Kind Regards,
Chris Drake

Friday, November 24, 2017, 1:27:18 PM, Grassi, Paul A. (Fed) wrote:

Fine. But as I have said you want a unicorn when we just want a car that can drive in the same Lane as SAML. Your unicorn is coming, as the phases of igov include international agreement on vot vectors/values and attribute metadata to assert 'assurance' of attributes that are unrelated to proofing.  

I happy for your contribution don't take unicorn comment poorly. Just a quick post turkey dinner way of making a point. Happy US Thanksgiving. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Phil Hunt <> wrote:

The issue i am concerned about then is that by leaving out the issue of claims than the vot is incomplete and would require a separate statement. 

This leads to a lot of interop and complexity problems down the road.  Which value wins etc given they would overlap. 

The vot does not have to address it now but it should have the capability to do so (that may not be possible without a model). 

This is a lot like when we found loa was actually multi dimensional and it had to dramatically change.  IAL falls into the same problem. 


On Nov 23, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Leif Johansson <> wrote:

On 2017-11-23 21:23, John Bradley wrote:


As part of the write-up for the Vectors of trust document, we need an

IPR disclosure from all of you.

Are you aware of any IPR related to the following VOT document?

Please reply to the list.  


John B. 

I am not.


vot mailing list

vot mailing list