Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

Your unhappyness will be noted.

Justin has some new text for the introduction that may help.

Justin can you copy the proposed changes to the list?

To restate the previous discussion.  Like Authentication Context class
reference in SAML and OIDC it is separate trust frameworks/federation
agreements that define identity proofing.

How individual claims/attributes other than subject, that are asserted as
part of a security token are proofed and that is indicated in the token is
out of scope for VOT as it is for ACR.

I appreciate that you would like this specification to also cover asserted
claims.

Do I have that correctly?

Regards
John B.

On Nov 23, 2017 12:58 PM, "Phil Hunt" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am still not happy with this spec.
>
> The identity proofing portion is arbitrarily limited based on non-specific
> definitions. Iow. I believe an identity proof is based on a set of claims
> being individually calculated.
>
> The nist notion of identity proofing is largely a human rather than an
> informational conclusion leads to the kind of trouble the no fly lists have
> had. RPs need to know the difference between one john smith and another
> john smith and that a particular one is not another. This is not addressed
> by simply a level of proof that john is john.
>
> Phil
>
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:23 PM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> 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?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust/
>
> Please reply to the list.
>
> Regards
> John B.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vot mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vot
>
>