I forgot to address the second part - general acceptability of LoA framework.

There are environments where they operate sometime by consensus rather than 
bilateral agreements e.g. healthcare. While Healthcare does has some bilateral 
agreements, there are so many potential relationships it is impractical to set 
up all you may need. The last thing you would want is for access to an out of 
town ER patients record to be blocked because if the lack of a bilateral 
agreement.  
 
Within any organization, there are ad-hoc communications which happen where you 
have not yet established a relationship. If you don't accept some form of LoA 
with basic policy, then those communications would be forced to be implicitly 
level 1. Equally if you organization is to against accepting a LoA, you could 
just use level 1 - which practically is the same thing.

I was not thinking we would map LoA scales. The challenge for Plasma is get 
consensus for a specific LoA scale that we could all adopt for basic policy.  
It will likely be like UN treaty negotiation where nobody is relay happy with 
the outcome but it's something that you can live with. 

Trevor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Fitch, Scott C
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [plasma] Levels of assurance

Is it necessary to require levels of assurance in the Basic Policy 
requirements? I definitely think it's appropriate for Advanced Policies. But I 
wonder whether including levels of assurance in Basic Policies will impede 
adoption.

Also, the fact that there are multiple LOA frameworks out there makes it 
difficult to meet the requirement to NOT require a priori bilateral agreements 
between the sender and recipient for Basic Policies. If the sender and 
recipient use different LOA scales, then some type of prior agreement must be 
in place to map the two scales. I don't think plasma wants to get into the 
business of creating a standard LOA mapping for interoperability.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
plasma mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
_______________________________________________
plasma mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma

Reply via email to