About this document: Agenda and notes are kept in the same document, a separate copy of the document is maintained for each meeting. Please add agenda points before the meeting. Action items created in previous meeting and all other unresolved action items are kept in the document. Please tick off any completed items.
Meeting link: https://meet.google.com/rsf-cqaq-eyq at 08:30 UTC / 09:30 CET / 14:00 IST
Attendees
Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) (meeting facilitator; meeting note keeper as Benjamin was in the train today)
Benjamin Balder Bach (weekly note keeper and time keeper)
Meeting Note
Agenda | Presenter | Discussion |
|---|---|---|
Action points from last week | ||
Updates from TC meeting (fixed) | (ad-hoc) | |
House-keeping | Let’s clean up action items and postponed agenda items. | |
Non-functional security requirements for ID and consent? | postponed for next meeting | Should we add inputs to general Non-functional security requirements regarding consent? Training requirements for staff? |
Gherkin scenario writing discussion | Everyone | Specific questions discussed from Ain’s work on Gherkin Scenario drafting document |
Additional roadmap item discussion: Configuration for callers of APIs: RBAC for agreements? | Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) added as comment Benjamin Balder Bach has an idea for a follow-up |
|
House-keeping our action items etc | Completed | |
Social Cash Transfer |
| |
Question from Sasi: is there any way to that multiple parties can interact with each other based on a broader agreement rather than a one to one agreement? | postponed for next meeting | Note keepers notes: We’ll probably have to take this one up at a later meeting because we didn’t get to an action item on this one.
|
Payment Use-Case | Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | What are consent-related aspects of the Payment UC?
|
Scope and service registry? | sasi Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | What are our next actions on registering required scopes for BB services? This agenda point seems (today) a bit vague, so that the decision is we will close it for the time being until called again with a specific request for action. For future reference some keywords discussed: What is the scope of data from other building blocks even before we can create a consent? Whether an individual can record a consent? |
“Consent management” definition | We renamed “Consent Management BB” to “Consent BB”. Is there a useful definition of “consent management” that we can apply? Decision: close the agenda point as “resolved” | |
New issues |
Discussion: How shall we address such matters, which do not fit into specification format?
| |
New issue | We need perhaps more general “BB prerequisites for integrating with Consent BB or something” (in addition to tech spec)
| |
Audit use cases test spec and potential update | Accepted to start working as suggested by Philippe CON-89 - Getting issue details... STATUS Toi be agreed over the next week Descriptions within Jira to keep the scope manageable
CON-93 - Getting issue details... STATUS CON-90 - Getting issue details... STATUS CON-91 - Getting issue details... STATUS CON-92 - Getting issue details... STATUS If any task is missing - anyone is free to add one
Need to think how far a volunteer work can carry us with this “mission-critical” service | |
Spec 2.0 | Everyone |
|
New Action Items
Action Items from previous meetings
- Presentation of API endpoints, mocks and tests for technical committee meeting Thursday Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) (blocked / reminder)
- Compliance concept - Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) (blocked / reminder)
- We need a meeting around verifying or gathering input from the Working group on the sequence diagram in BB Interaction Flow Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) will call for this.
- Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) schedule to review Social Cash Transfer Use Case.
- Benjamin Balder Bach look at previous notes to embed OpenAPI in GitBook and send a note to Ramkumar
- Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) add and maintain definitions for subjects of Gherkin scenarios
- Get GitBook invite for Philippe Page
- Philippe Page sign up to GitBook via GitHub or tell Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) what your existing signup email is.
- Benjamin Balder Bach create a variety of simple Gherkin scenarios for registering an individual so it’s clear that the Consent BB doesn’t care about the type of ID and how it stores external references.
- Philippe Page Create a Jira issue discussing to create a confluence page that has new scenarios which can illustrate why a modular system like GovStack benefits from using Consent IDs that aren’t directly mapped to functional IDs. Ultimately to mature into specification, maybe Gherkin scenarios.
- Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) consider if the decision to have “external ID” and “external ID type” referencing Individuals is relevant for the Key Desicion Log (if it’s not already there)
- Benjamin Balder Bach Next steps on: Audit filters w/ temporal logic, Audit data, New fields that we need to store: Application IDs, Traceable IDs + modify “forgettable” in the sense that consent record may be deleted once a specific service has been delivered and the consent is no longer eligible.
Decision
- We agree with Steve about the 2 visual diagrams in “7 Data Structure”, we will keep the drawings and avoid any auto-generated models for now.