Agenda:

https://github.com/biometricITC/cPP-biometrics/wiki/iTC-Meeting-Agenda-2020-09-24

Call started at 10:00 am EDT

Attendees

• Brian Wood
• Naruki Kai
• Clare Olin
• Greg Fiumara

Record of Decisions

• The members agreed to close the current round of review and to publish the next draft for public review.

Action Items

• Brian will post the updates to the website on September 25 to start the next round of review (he will also notify NIAP for posting as news)
• Brian will create an ESR template in GitHub from the v2.0 document to allow for editing discussions related to CMFA

Minutes

The call started with a quick review of the Task List. The review feedback tasks for the toolboxes were checked off.

Brian then provided an update that all issues and pull requests have been closed for the toolboxes so all comments from this round have been reviewed and changes made and merged.

The next topic was an update related to the NIAP fingerprint toolbox. The person working on the toolbox has said they are close to the release, though exactly when was not clear. There was a suggestion that we could help with formatting or structure if that would be useful, and Brian said he would reach out to offer this to the person in charge at NIAP.

Brian then reviewed the documents (website update and overview document) that will be posted for opening the next round of comments. This seemed fine to everyone, and it was agreed to start the next period on September 25, with the period ending on October 26.

The last discussion point was to see if there were any more questions or thoughts about the CMFA proposal. There was some discussion about what this would encompass as far as the ESR is concerned. Brian pointed out some draft pieces in the overview document, and expected these would at least be a starting point for discussion. Naruki asked if a CMFA used a biometric, would that be in scope of the CMFA PP-Module? Brian responded that he expected any biometrics to be used would be evaluated under the existing PP-Module (either before or in parallel), as long as it was one supported by that document. Brian also pointed out that the CMFA equivalent of PAD may be out of scope since it isn't clear how this would work since you are presenting multiple types of input. Another question was about the usage. The current PP-Module is focused on unlocking the device, would this be the same. Brian pointed out that he had some other usage scenarios, for things that are internal, like unlocking an NFC key for a door, as well as external, such as unlocking a laptop, that could lead to optional requirements for how CMFA data should be communicated.

After the CMFA discussion, it was agreed to copy the current ESR into GitHub so proposed edits/discussions could be handled there. Brian will create this document before the next call in the Administration repository.

The next call will be on October 8.

The call ended at 10:33am EDT.