assurance - RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents

Subject: Assurance

List archive

RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents

From: Paul Caskey <>
To: "" <>
Subject: RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:58:34 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Authentication-results: incommon.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;incommon.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=internet2.edu;
Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23

That jives with my memory too.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cantor, Scott []
Received: Tuesday, 10 May 2016, 10:50AM
To: []
Subject: RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents

> Yes, they proposed practices have changed substantially in response to
> feedback already received. Re timelines, everyone wants this to happen.
> At this point I'm probably the biggest hold up by insisting that we get
> loads of feedback and buy in.

I felt as though the most significant hold up was in regard to compliance and the consequences for non-compliance. I didn't sense much consensus last year on that issue.

-- ScottC

Re: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents, (continued)

List archive

RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents