SPG:Drafts:Assessment Community IDvetting adequacy
Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting
From the security policy on Acceptable Authentication 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]:
a) IGTF Assurance Profile ASPEN (urn:oid:1.2.840.113618.104.22.168.1)
b) IGTF Assurance Profile BIRCH (urn:oid:1.2.840.113622.214.171.124.2)
c) IGTF Assurance Profile CEDAR (urn:oid:1.2.840.1136126.96.36.199.3)
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:1.2.840.1136188.8.131.52.4) is considered adequate when used solely in combination with said VO or e-Infrastructure registration service.