2023-03-24 - Weekly Update
- Benjamin Balder Bach
- PSRAMKUMAR
- Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated)
Mar 24, 2023
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)
@Philippe Page
@Benjamin Balder Bach (weekly note keeper and time keeper)
@sasi
Meeting Note
Agenda | Presenter | Discussion |
|---|---|---|
Action points from last week | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | Discussed and resolved |
Updates from TC meeting (fixed) | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | CON-75: Update Consent Specification for Version 1.0 releaseDone to be finished with CON-76: Remove Section 4 - Key Digital FunctionalitiesDone under review @PSRAMKUMAR to review the GitBook PR https://app.gitbook.com/o/pxmRWOPoaU8fUAbbcrus/s/oEAfhW9JLP3tJ6mPyxtF/~/changes/18/internal-use-case-definitions/uc-c-pic-a-organisation-administration-use-cases-configuration Ain created |
House-keeping | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) and @Benjamin Balder Bach | Action items and postponed agenda items cleaned up |
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 | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) will add to CON-1: Consent Specifications v2.0In Progress |
House-keeping our action items etc |
| Completed |
Social Cash Transfer |
| Add to CON-1: Consent Specifications v2.0In Progress ticket with the links to relevant discussion by other groups @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) |
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. to write the outcome of discussions with @Philippe Page 2w ago @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) |
Payment Use-Case | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | What are consent-related aspects of the Payment UC? Add to Spec 2.0 as a ticket @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) |
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 | @Ain Aaviksoo (Deactivated) | 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 | @sasi |
Discussion: How shall we address such matters, which do not fit into specification format? @sasi will articulate in Consent BB FAQ these questions to be addressed (the group can then address them and decide where and how their later proper “place” will be) |
New issue | @Benjamin Balder Bach | 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 | @Philippe Page | Accepted to start working as suggested by Philippe CON-89: Document Consent BB use for different Audit ScenariosIn Progress Toi be agreed over the next week Descriptions within Jira to keep the scope manageable CON-93: Document what are audit trackerAccepted CON-90: Document Consent BB use for Third Party external auditAccepted CON-91: Document Consent BB use for Individual (e.g. consentee) auditProposed CON-92: Document Consent BB for a ControllerProposed 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
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.