[Openid-specs-heart] Draft HEART Meeting Notes 2016-01-09

[Sarah Squire]

Attending:

Debbie

Justin

Eve

Sarah

Ken

Adrian

Nancy

Debbie:

We’d like to finish the last semantic profile, and move all the specs that
made it to first implementors draft to second implementors draft. What
would the timeline for that be? One major question is for the semantic
profile, should we consider UMA 1.0 and 2.0? That would give it a forward
flavor, but allow people to implement now.

Eve:

Why not? Yeah. Right now I think resource set registration needs spec text.
There are several other areas for potential semantic profiling,
particularly around messaging. For example, if we want to talk about the
types of claims that ASs can support. We haven’t discussed other areas, but
we should work through those step by step and decide as a group whether we
want to go there. It depends largely on the use cases.

Debbie:

Could we make a final decision on that, or at least the approach for that
next week?

Eve:

Yes

Justin:

I think that’s a good idea, and I’d like to see a simple proposal for
carrying heart-specific claims. If there’s a token format or something like
that to tell the client what we are looking for, then we should say that.

Debbie:

We did list some standardized claims. Both around specific people or roles
or promised usage.

Eve:

Those were intended to be illustrative, not normative.

Justin:

I’m with Eve’s assessment of this. While the processing of claims is
internal to the AS, it would help interoperability if we explain how to say
“I’m a doctor” or “here’s my email address.” I think those should be
normative, but normative as in “must understand” not normative as in “must
accept.”

Nancy:

One of the problems is that there are a lot of use cases, and I don’t know
how to divide them in a way that makes them useful.

Debbie:

Can we make one or two that are commonly understood and say “here’s how you
would express this”?

Nancy:

Yes, and I’m hearing a lot of use cases that involve identifying people
within an institution, we also need to think about defining people outside
of a specific institutions.

Justin:

And that has to do with binding an account to a discoverable identifier.

Debbie:

Nancy and Eve, can I put you on the spot for next week? My goal is to get a
timeline.

Eve:

I’d love to see the text we have turned into a real spec if Justin is
willing. I think the messaging flow is best kept separate.

Debbie:

Next week is a holiday, so I think we have to pick this up on the 23rd.

Eve:

If anyone wants to meet for an ad-hoc, I’ll be working on Monday the 16th.

Debbie:

I don’t know if I’ll be available, but I’ll start the call.

Justin:

I’m available

Nancy:

I’m available

Debbie:
Okay, sounds like we will have a call next week.

Sarah Squire
Engage Identity
http://engageidentity.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20170109/b6325530/attachment.html>