MFA Interop Working Group

["Jokl, James A. (Jim) (jaj)" <>]

I too think that this is ready to go as-is. My one question is if anyone 
thinks that we should add a sentence near where we talk about the baseline 
profile and add in a "likely future strong MFA profile" to try to get across 
the idea that the whole picture in this space is likely include baseline, 
simple MFA, and strong MFA (and maybe more but I hope not too many more). 
Jim

> On May 9, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Herrington, Karen 
> <>
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for producing this draft.  I'm satisfied with the suggested changes 
> and would like to go ahead and send this out.  I want to be sure I am 
> sending to the correct email address.  Can you provide that?
> 
> Karen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> 
>  
> [mailto:]
>  On Behalf Of David Walker
> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 3:29 PM
> To: MFA Interoperability Profile Working Group 
> <>
> Subject: [MFA-Interop] DRAFT not to 
> 
>  about an MFA entity category
> 
> Everyone,
> 
> As promised, I've drafted a note for the Assurance list about our 
> discussion yesterday of an IdP entity category to indicate MFA support. 
> It's a Google Doc at
> https://docs.google.com/a/internet2.edu/document/d/1Cdc7MeQIyrTCCU4aVfbcSnad8_oqV-5jK902VqkZQUE/edit?usp=sharing.
>  
> As we discussed, please respond with comments quickly so the final version 
> can be sent on Monday. 
> 
> Karen, we didn't discuss who would send it.  It's probably best from you, 
> but I can send it, if you'd rather.
> 
> David
> 
>