PD+-+Sprint+Team+Meeting+Minutes+2011-06-17


 * Meeting Date:** 06/17/2011
 * Meeting Title:** PD Sprint Team Meeting Session 3

**Agenda/Objectives:**

 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Updates and Next Steps from F2F Meeting || 5 minutes ||
 * Query for Digital Certificate Use Case || 50 minutes ||
 * Query for Electronic Address Use Case || 10 minutes ||
 * Sprint Team Logistics || 10 minutes ||
 * Next steps and Questions || 5 minutes ||

**Attendees:**
__Workgroup Attendees:__ Mary Lynam, Sri Koka, Kelly Conlin, Jas Singh, Mara Robertson, Teresa Strickland, Joy Styrcula, Paul Cartland, Seonho Kim, Erik Pupo, Rao Parvatam, Jennifer Sisto, Derrick Evans, Sandra Schafer, Christine Sher, David Tao, Karen Witting, Donna Jones, Laurance Stuntz, Michael Nelson, Chris Andreou, Daniel Kearney, Ken Pool, Joni Bass, Ron Sawdey, bob yencha, Ernest Grove, Peter Bachman, Vadim Plitman, Noam Arzt, nitin jain, Brandy Hays, lin wan, Odysseas Pentakalos, Francis Chan, Will Rice, Thompson Boyd, Robert Dieterle, Marcus Clayton, Ananya Gupta, Boris Shur, Vincent Lewis, John Moehrke, Diana Massey, Sara Lambert, Lester Keepper, sara parkerson, Tynisha Carter

__Panelist Attendees:__ Victoria Njoku, Virginia Riehl, Jitin Asnaani, Jonathan Tadese

**Action Items:**

 * **Date** || **Description** || **Status** || **Notes** ||
 * 6/17/11 || Review and provide comments to updated Query for Electronic Address Use Case on Wiki once posted || OPEN || n/a ||
 * 6/17/11 || Address parking lot items on first Use Case during Monday SWG meeting || OPEN || n/a ||
 * 6/21/11 || Review final Query for Digital Certificate Use Case once posted and cast vote if a Committed Member || OPEN || n/a ||

**Updates and Next Steps from F2F Meeting**

 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * Proposal to accelerate Electronic Address Discovery work stream


 * Resolution(s):**
 * Continue Use Case development and try to remain in sync with first work stream.

**Query for Digital Certificate Use Case** **Development**

 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * The word “routing” nee to be updated throughout the document
 * The phrase “through the senders system” needs to be clarified.
 * Differentiation of the wording between Provider Directories and Certificate Directories needs to be within the Overview and Scope.
 * Bullet 3 in section 2.2 (out of scope) needs to be clear about what system is being referred to
 * We are only focusing on using electronic address to query for this use case
 * Update of wording “senders” and “destinations” for the entire Use Case to be consistent throughout.
 * The reference to Standards is odd, they should be excluded and referenced somewhere else
 * Policy and regulatory issues identified needs to be specific to the Use Case itself and not general
 * Under Policy Issues, first bullet (Architecture statement) in section 2.4 (policy) is a general statement and not specific to this Use Case
 * There are more policy issues that should be listed
 * The discussion should be narrowed down to this Use Case and also be consistent
 * Workgroup decided at F2F that a “public key” does not mean that it is universally available.


 * Resolution(s):**
 * “Routing” is reworded to “facilitation secure information exchange” and updated throughout the document
 * Removed “information to the intended destination through the senders system” statement.
 * Comment was inserted into Overview and Scope referring individuals to the glossary to differentiate between Provider Directories and Certificate Directories.
 * Removed the word “local” from the last paragraph in the Overview and scope
 * Bullet # 3 in section 2.2 (out of scope) was update to include the word “consumer” before the word “system”. The word “digital” was placed before the word “certificates”
 * Two additional bullets were added to section 2.2 (out of scope)
 * Query for other security artifacts
 * Query for certificate by any identifier (e.g. UUID) other than an electronic address
 * Changed “providers” to “senders” and changed “between providers and entities” to “destinations” in section 2.3 (background)
 * The reference to Standards in section 2.3 (background) was removed
 * Deletion of bullet 1(architecture) in 2.4 (policy issues)
 * In section 3.0 (challenge statement) the word “not” has been removed from the statement “this functionality is generally supported by consistent”. The wording “but not adopted widely” was added after consistent
 * “However, when external to the organizational boundary, a functionality will be needed” was added in section 4.0 (challenge statement)

**Query for Electronic Address Use Case Development**

 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * Issues and obstacles specified should be specific to the Use Case
 * Bullet #2 “The lack of extensive experience in the implementation of the existing standard” in section 11.0 (issues and obstacles) the word “extensive” should be removed, or we should qualify this a bit. This is because we may have no experience with the implementation of the existing standards
 * There are several existing and potential standards, but no widespread adoption
 * Bullet # 4 in section 11.0 referencing the current status of existing standards (issues and obstacles) should be removed. This is out of scope for this Use Case
 * Remove the statement “Ensuring that there are consistent and reliable mechanisms for updating provider directories” from the issues and obstacles section and move to the assumption section. This should be moved to assumptions because if someone does not believe that the data is reliable or correct then no one would use the directory
 * The word “mechanism” needs to be updated in bullet #5 (issues and obstacles)
 * This can be both an issues and an assumption statement
 * Resolution(s):**
 * Bullet was added to reflect there are several and potential standards that exist but may not be at a mature state
 * Bullet # 4 referencing the current status of existing standards was revised and kept in the issues and obstacles section
 * Updated bullet #5 to indicate the need to standardize data and messaging for Provider Directories designed for other uses

**Parking Lot Items:**

 * Address and identify the policy issues related specifically to this Use Case especially privacy and security issues as previously described “Policies and guidelines will need to be defined to prevent the publishing or discoverability of a certificate and to ensure that Certificate Directories are not vulnerable to or contribute to security breaches
 * Address and identify the regulatory issues related specifically to this Use Case
 * Determine whether the ability to satisfy or meet the certificate policies under the Federal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) may be a regulatory issue.

**Logistics**

 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * Consensus Process for Query for Digital Certificate Use Case and Handoff to Harmonization Team (June 24th)
 * There should be at least a one week consensus period
 * Recurring Electronic Address Discovery SWG Meetings: determine best option for SWG members moving forward (currently scheduled for Mondays 4:00-5:30PM ET)
 * Presentation on Australia’s Human Services Directory (by Max Walker) June 23rd, 4:00 – 5:00PM E.T.
 * Resolutions:**
 * The Electronic Address Discovery SWG Meetings were rescheduled Thursdays 12:00-1:30PM ET)
 * The Sprint Team meeting was extended by 30 minutes to accommodate work on the second use case and harmonization work on the first use case.
 * Consensus will begin during week of 6/20 assuming all parking lot items are addressed during Monday 6/20 SWG meeting.