Difference between revisions of "SPG:Drafts:Assessment Community IDvetting adequacy"

From EGIWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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 VO registration service, meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP].  
 
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 VO registration service, meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP].  
  
The VO 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, must submit a request for assessment by the EGI Security Policy Group.  
+
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, must submit a request for assessment by the EGI Security Policy Group to EGI operations.  
  
 
The request shall include the following information:  
 
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 Membership Management Policy
*documented description of the membership life cycle process and practices meeting the requirements of the IGTF [https://www.igtf.net/ap/authn-assurance ASPEN, BIRCH, or CEDAR assurance level], where
+
*a statement of their compliance with the Community Operations Security Policy
**the membership registration data and issued assertions constitute the credential of the user  
+
*a documented description of the membership life cycle process and practices meeting the requirements of the IGTF [https://www.igtf.net/ap/authn-assurance ASPEN, BIRCH, or CEDAR assurance level], in which 
**where the identifier is obtained from a DOGWOOD user credential, the membership registration data should maintain a persistent unique mapping to an appropriate representation of the real name of the user, and this name should be released where technically feasible
+
**the ''credential'' of the user is the membership registration data and community-issued assertions
**the collection of membership management and assertion-issuing systems and services constitutes the Issuing Authority.
+
**the ''Issuing Authority'' is the collection of membership management and assertion-issuing systems and services  
**the credential life time corresponds to the re-confirmation periods as defined in the Community Membership Management Policy
+
**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
  
Based on this information, the EGI SPG shall advise the EGI Operations Management Board with respect to suitability of the VO or e-Infrastructure for such combined adequacy in accordance with the Policy on Acceptable Authentication Assurance.  
+
Based on this information, the EGI SPG shall advise the EGI Operations Management Board 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 [https://wiki.eugridpma.org/Main/AssuranceAssessment 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.<br>
+
The SPG may make available [https://wiki.eugridpma.org/Main/AssuranceAssessment 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.<br>

Revision as of 12:13, 7 July 2017

Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting

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 VO registration service, meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP].

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, must submit a request for assessment by the EGI Security Policy Group to EGI 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 ASPEN, BIRCH, or CEDAR 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

Based on this information, the EGI SPG shall advise the EGI Operations Management Board 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.