Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ad-assurance - [AD-Assurance] RE: Cookbook edits

Subject: Meeting the InCommon Assurance profile criteria using Active Directory

List archive

[AD-Assurance] RE: Cookbook edits

Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Rank, Mark" <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: [AD-Assurance] RE: Cookbook edits
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:55:33 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none

Eric et al.:

I went in and offered some edits to Paragraph 2 of the Intro and to the answer on scope in Appx G. 

Some questions for the group?

- Intro | Paragraph 1 |Should we ref version of IAP?
- Intro | Last two paragraphs | Should we change the last two paragraphs of the intro to "living document language"?

Otherwise, I think it looks OK to me.


Mark Rank
Project Manager - Identity & Access Mgt
UCSF Information Technology Services (ITS)

From: [] on behalf of Eric Goodman []
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:15 AM
Subject: [AD-Assurance] Cookbook edits

I didn’t say this as we got off the call, but I made some edits to the BitLocker statements already, to call out the use of approved algorithm.


I also did a quick scan of the appendices, and they look fine to me. I did rename the Appendix C from “Operational Considerations…[around use of]…Syskey” to “For Use of Disk Encryption Software” since Syskey is not considered sufficient.


I think Appendix F is someone non-sequitor-ish now that we removed any reference to password entropy from the rest of the doc, but I don’t see a problem leaving it in.


At this point I’ll stop editing to allow collection of comments on the doc as a “reference draft” we can all speak to.


--- Eric

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page