Identity Assurance - Need Input from other Jurisdictions

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

The document so far is driven by our (yes.com) experiences with identity assurance in a specific jurisdiction (Germany) and certain laws (AML, eIDAS, ...). This means the trust frameworks, identity documents, and verification methods considered are rather narrow.

We need input from other jurisdictions about documents & verification methods. We need more input about concrete use cases for RPs.

[Jeff LOMBARDO]

Hi Torsten,

Here is a document that try to map all the differents requriements and Identity Proofing taxonomy per framework:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oUkiAbBcZCzyO8q6pvOTM7IQ5sf7l49xt-HpUqYNup8/edit#gid=625252239

JF

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

Thanks for providing this input.

I see how I could extract trust frameworks from your document.

Can you please explain how I can obtain further information I‘m looking for (verification methods, documents)?

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

added German ID documents in -03

[Nat Sakimura]

OIDF-J should provide some comments.

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

Received feedback from OIDF Japan.

Some comments were addressed by spec changes, some caused creation of tickets.

Some comments need more in depth discussion, but I don’t see any obstacle preventing us from moving the spec forward into implementers draft stage.

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

added japanese trust frameworks and id documents and improved wording about metadata

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

transferred to https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1077/identity-assurance-need-input-from-other