Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

assurance - Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing feedback from Big Ten auditors

Subject: Assurance

List archive

Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing feedback from Big Ten auditors


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Michael R. Gettes" <>
  • To: "<>" <>
  • Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing feedback from Big Ten auditors
  • Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:30:47 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US

Mark,

I believe your interoperation is not accurate.  We are comparable to 800-63 but to say it meets it is not true.  We meet being a FICAM approved Trust Framework.  Behind the scenes there has been lots of work by various people to work with the FICAM to have them approve the InCommon trust framework as comparable to the Federal Trust Framework.  This means, after a great deal of work helping the Feds understand us and then us understanding the Feds we have a shared view and agreement of how our trust frameworks work together and map onto each other.  I hope this helps.

/mrg

On Aug 9, 2012, at 13:52, Jones, Mark B wrote:

I think the significant point here is that InCommon is ICAM approved (http://www.idmanagement.gov/pages.cfm/page/ICAM-TrustFramework-Provider) and that 800-63 is one of the federal standards ICAM uses to assess “the efficacy of … Trust Frameworks”.
 
The way I interpret all this is that InCommon Silver meets the 800-63 standard.
 
 
From:  [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ann West
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:57 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing feedback from Big Ten auditors
 

Yes.
 
Ann
 
So "comparable" but "not the same"?
 
Bill
 





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page