Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Ann West, Internet2
Steve Devoti, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Jacob Farmer, University of Indiana
Tom Golson, Texas A&M
David Walker, Internet2
Benn Oshrin, Spherical Cow Consulting
David Crotts, Virginia Tech
Mary Dunker, Virginia Tech
Karen Harrington, VA Tech
Jeff Capehart, Univ. of Florida
Benn Oshrin, Spherical Cow Consulting
David Walker, Internet2
Emily Eisbruch, Internet2, scribe

...

http://info.idmanagement.gov/2013/11/ficam-trust-framework-solutions-tfs.htmlhttp://www.idmanagement.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FICAM_TFS_TFPAP_0.pdf

Background: FICAM let informed the Trust Framework Providers know about of the new FICAM 2.0 spec last fall.
InCommon sent a lengthly set of comments. Most were addressed in discussions afterwards.
FICAM released their new 2.0 spec early in 2014.

Ann is working on analyzing the impact of the FICAM 2.0 documents on InCommon Assurance IDPs. The InCommon Bronze and Silver specs will most likely remain unchanged. There are some changes in terminology. The new FICAM spec refers to " Identity Providers " as a "Credential Service Providers." A Credential Service Provider handles assurance, and can do token management and credential issuance and can assert identity attributes on behalf of the individual.

There is a bundle of attributes that FICAM requires all Credential Service Provides must agree to release. At this point those attributes are legal name and date of birth. But   InCommon's point of view position is that all attribute release should be handled by membership in the InCommon federation. InCommon is working with FICAM to negotiate away remove the requirements for InCommon Credential Service Providers to release attributes to FICAM. The hope is that it can be agreed FICAM will agree that InCommon will release a standard set of attributes (perhaps the R&S bundle) to agencies operating within the FICAM framework.

FICAM decided that their previous document did not do enough to facilitate federation, and under FICAM 2.0, a federation like InCommon or Kantara must provide more info to FICAM about how their federation works, such as how the change management process, testing and interoperability, are handled, etc.

...