1.1.   Attending:

1. Anoop
2. Nat
3. Tony
4. Dima
5. Edmund
6. Stuart

1.2.   Regrets:

3.1.   FDX (Anoop)

FDX Conference is next week. Don T. wold be joining the meeting. Bjorn would be able to join remotely. He is committed on creating slides. Anoop will check with the organizers on the remote joining.

3.2.   Australia (Nat)

We got a letter back from Australian Data Standard body. It has been shared in the access controlled Liaison Committee list. We need to respond to that. From the reading of their letter, there seems to be some impedance mis-match so going over the technical details in the form of mail does not seem productive. Instead, we should do a call that is recorded and minuted and keep our response short just focusing on the very high-level topics.

There is another time sensitive topic in the Australian Data Standards Body (ADSB). It is about the client registration. What the ADSB is proposing is the static registration that are synced among the participants through polling etc. The documentation is here:

• ACDS Registration Introduction
• ACDS Static Cleint Registration Spec.

There is a topic opened in their github thread. Dave has already responded to the thread as a co-chair of the group but it seems it has been regarded just as an individual position. It seems that we need to post the WG position on it. Nat proposed to take it up in Sept. 4 Atlantic call and asked Stuart to create a ticket and also do a brief introduction to the Australian situation in the call.

We need to note that there are specific concerns that Australian regulators: They want more control. So, what is needed there is a DynReg that makes use of Software Statement Assertion (SSA). This needs to be standardized and perhaps we can offer the editorship of the draft to somebody from ADSB.

Stuart also asked about the progress of the Intent API. Nat replied that it has been slow due to the summer vacation time in EU but it should be picking up now. This also seem to be something need to be standardized pretty quickly to consolidate the regional standards.

Nat also stated that he will discuss with Tony (his connection was unstable that he could not really participate in the call) about the possibility of taking our specs to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 or ITU-T. FAPI specs were once submit to TC68 (Financial Services) but as it is applicable to other industries as well, it may make more sense to re-submit them to SC27 where generic security standards are being created. ITU-T may also work as a generic fora.