View LISTSERV archives

IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

IDM Home

IDM Home

IDM  April 2009

IDM April 2009

Subject:

Re: Federal E-Authentication

From:

"David L. Wasley" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:17:03 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

Jim,  InCommon Silver was developed by InCommon from the original 
eAuth CAF/CAP and is intended to be both consistent with NIST 800-63 
and recognize the needs of higher ed.  GSA is well aware of it and 
we're planning to meet with them later this month to discuss it.

One of the main differences from the eAuth CAF/P is recognition of a 
broader meaning of "identity" and the need for consistency in the use 
of, e.g. eduPerson when providing identity assertions.  For that and 
other reasons we are not referring to "assurance levels" but to 
"assurance profiles" to allow for different general use cases with 
rich identity.  That said, InCommon Bronze is intended to be 
consistent with eAuth LOA-1 and Silver is consistent with LOA-2.

	David
-----
At 8:35 AM -0400 on 4/6/09, Jim Green wrote:

>No, I had bookmarked that site as I was (am) doing some research for a
>project we've got going here called, "identity verification."  We're trying
>to develop and document a process to make our identity proofing more
>consistent and keep better records of what we're doing.  So I've been
>studying up on whatever I can find on guidelines and recommended procedures.
>Among other things, I've looked at NIST SP 800-63 and OMB M-04-04.  We're
>thinking of making InCommon Silver one our goals.
>
>It seems to me having the agencies as members of InCommon will probably work
>out better in the long run, at least from our (higher ed) point of view.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of RL 'Bob' Morgan
>Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:32 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [IDM] Federal E-Authentication
>
>>  Has anyone heard what is going on with this?  This seems to imply they
>>  are either tearing down or drastically changing the e-authentication
>>  service.
>
>Just curious, were you or some of your users using apps via the E-Auth
>portal?
>
>The E-Authentication web site is still there:
>
>   http://cio.gov/eauthentication/
>
>but has been re-purposed to refer to generic identity etc services.
>
>E-Auth has been on its way out for quite a while.  It always suffered from
>a poor funding situation (ie, paid for by a tax on agencies rather than
>base funding), and in my opinion was way too heavyweight in many ways to
>be sustainable. As David mentions, now agencies are encouraged to work
>directly with InCommon to federate with higher ed, and they are doing so.
>We continue to work closely with the GSA to make sure that we're aligned
>going forward (eg on attribute usage, and SAML 2 migration), in particular
>to ensure that the InCommon Silver Assurance Profile (see
>http://incommonfederation.org/assurance/) meets USG requirements for
>access to LoA 2 applications.
>
>   - RL "Bob"

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave IDM

Join or Leave IDM


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2