|(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)|
|−|'''Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting ''' |+|
-of the vetting
| || |
|−|From the security policy on Acceptable Authentication Assurance, |+|
the Assurance ,
| || |
|−|Authentication and identification is considered adequate if the combined assurance level provided by the Issuing Authority, the e-Infrastructure registration service, and the VO registration service, for each User authorised to access Services, meets or exceeds the requirements of the following approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [R5]: |+|
the following :
| || |
) IGTF Assurance Profile ASPEN (urn:oid: 1. 2. 840.1136220.127.116.11.1) |+|
| || |
|−|b) IGTF Assurance Profile BIRCH (urn:oid:1. 2.840.113618.104.22.168.2) |+|
| || |
|−|c) IGTF Assurance Profile CEDAR (urn:oid: 1. 2. 840.113612.5. 2.5.3) |+|
:... to use the assurance , the . assurance profiles the . . ) with -.
|−|Unless either the VO or e-infrastructure registration service can demonstrate that - for the Users it authorises to use Services - it meets one of the approved assurance profiles, the IGTF accredited issuing authority MUST provide this level of assurance. | |
|−|If either the specific VO registration service or the e-Infrastructure registration service meets or exceeds the approved authentication assurance profiles , an IGTF accredited Issuing Authority meeting the IGTF Assurance Profile DOGWOOD (urn:oid:1. 2. 840.113622.214.171.124.4) is considered adequate when used solely in combination with said VO or e- Infrastructure registration service. | |
Authentication and identification is considered adequate, for each User authorised to access Services, if the combined assurance level provided by the end-user credential issuing authority, and either the e-Infrastructure registration service and/or the Community registration service, meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP]. This is conventionally assured through a vetting process during user credential issuance at their identity provider.
The Community or e-Infrastructure wishing to prove the adequacy of its identity vetting, in order to use its members' credentials in conjunction with the IGTF Assurance Profile DOGWOOD, and substantiate their compliance with the Snctfi membership management requirements, must submit a request for assessment by the designated Security Policy Groups (SPG) by way of Infrastructure Operations.
The request shall include the following information:
- a statement of their compliance with the Community Membership Management Policy
- a statement of their compliance with the Community Operations Security Policy
- a documented description of the membership life cycle process and practices meeting the requirements of the IGTF BIRCH, CEDAR (or ASPEN) assurance level, in which
- the credential of the user is the membership registration data and community-issued assertions
- the Issuing Authority is the collection of membership management and assertion-issuing systems and services
- the credential life time corresponds to the renewal periods as defined in the Community Membership Management Policy
- a description of the method of binding between the membership information and the DOGWOOD user credential (identifier)
Based on this information, the SPG shall advise the Infrastructure Operations with respect to suitability of the Community or e-Infrastructure for such combined adequacy in accordance with the Policy on Acceptable Authentication Assurance.
The SPG may make available an evaluation matrix. Applicant communities are welcome to use the assurance evaluation matrix to prepare the requisite documents, bearing in mind the evaluation Method and the Persistent registry (community membership) implementation and assessment hints. The most relevant community assurance profiles for the joint adequacy purpose are BIRCH and CEDAR. Registries and membership services at ASPEN level are strongly discouraged. The credential (registration) life time of 11 days necessitates re-registering members with this frequency, and re-validating their eligibility. This model is likely to both confuse and upset members.