Re: NIST Identity Guidelines - Review Period

Hi all, bumping this thread because the deadline is next Monday, the 10th. In the GitHub issue, the work item owners have produced summary on how to quickly read and make sense of the text by outlining its structure and how it's relevant to our ecosystem.  If you'd like to contribute, please review the GitHub issue here:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/145

If you have any relevant additions or take issue with the comments so far, you can also add a comment to the GitHub issue to make note of it. Please consider use of the excellent format Adrian has pioneered here, which can help contextualize how you should think about your comments:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/145#issuecomment-669415510

Given the tight timeline and nature of _volunteer_ involvement, the goal here is not to cover every possible item to comment upon across the four documents, but rather it is to make salient points likely to make sense to the NIST reviewers and therefore update the text with an informed perspective on our ecosystem's work to keep the dialog open. Therefore, even if you take a modest lunch break to "hunt and peck" a few suggestions, it could matter a lot in our reaching of that goal.

Over the weekend, I will consolidate the responses more coherently, listing the Work Item owners and W3C CCG community at large as the authors by default. Please reach out directly over email to me or in the GH issue if you feel strongly about specific inclusion/exclusion of your name wrt the list of authors.

On Monday, August 10th, we plan to have the work item owners convene on Jitsi (along with anyone else who wants to join) to eliminate any contentious items and ensure consistent formatting/phrasing. Upon review and acceptance by the chairs, we will send the response to NIST. Big thanks to all the contributors for their additions to date, especially to the work item owners Nader, Ken, and Chris!

Best,
- Wayne

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Nader Helmy wrote:
> Hey Wayne,
> 
> Was going to propose the work item today but you beat me to it :) Thanks for that.
> 
> I’m happy to be co-owner on this item with you. Will leave a comment on the Github issue as well.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:51 AM Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> __
>> I've proposed a new work item here: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/145
>> 
>> Please add a comment to the GitHub issue if you would like to be involved and contribute to this over the next 17 days. Feel free to reply to me directly if you want involvement but not publicly. I need a secondary co-owner to move things forward.
>> 
>> Best,
>> - Wayne
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 7:04 PM, Wayne Chang wrote:
>>> Hi Nader, thanks for sharing to the list and for your well-written summary. I think it's important to engage governments to help them understand how technology based on our standards can help protect their citizens and to ensure that recommendations/regulatory requirements make room for or even encourage the adoption of global standards that are inclusively designed. When we don't do this, we run into difficult situations: for example, that the secp256k1 curve is not a NIST curve has caused a divide between enterprise and government usage of smart contract infrastructure. We have a chance to bridge chasms now.
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested in collaborating with you to create a Work Item within CCG to synthesize the relevant parts of the guidelines, organize a community response, and coordinate guidance from those who have experience with providing impactful feedback to NIST over the next 19 days. If you're open in this approach, I would recommend proposing a new work item using this link:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/new/choose
>>> 
>>> I am happy to then accept responsibility as a co-owner of this Proposed Work Item, which would help turn this into an official Work Item since we will have two different parties. You can read about the full process here:
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vj811aUbs8GwZUNo-LIFBHafsz4rZTSnRtPv7RQaqNc/edit#
>>> 
>>> We can have more than two owners on a Work Item, in case anyone else on this list is interested. Also Nader, please feel no obligation to take this on as your Work Item should your schedule or other commitments disallow. If no action in two days, I will make a new Proposed Work Item issue and bump this thread due to the short timeline, and invite participation to the GitHub issue.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> - Wayne
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Nader Helmy wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> It came to my attention that NIST is currently in an open review period on their Digital Identity Guidelines as published under NIST 800-63-3.
>>>> 
>>>> https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-63/4/draft
>>>> Deadline: August 10
>>>> 
>>>> They're seeking feedback on a wide variety of topics to improve the standard, including remote identity proofing, mitigating correlation, and biometric verification. The scope of these regulations is very broad and the open review period seems like a substantial opportunity to provide our input as a community on some practical, real-world identity regulations. I'm sure some of us have already started thinking about this, how might we get organized?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nader
>>>> 
>>>> This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
>>> 
>>