Liaison statement
Liaison statement from ITU-T SG 17 to IETF on Technical output of Focus Group on Identity Management (FG IdM)

State Posted
Submitted Date 2007-10-19
From Group ITU-T-SG-17
From Contact Xiaoya Yang
To Group IETF
To Contacts Scott Bradne
Response Contact Xiaoya YANG
Technical Contact
Purpose For comment
Deadline 2007-12-09 Action Taken
Attachments Liaison on Technical output of Focus Group on Identity Management (FG IdM)
Study Group 17 is pleased to announce that the ITU-T Focus Group on Identity
Management (FG IdM) has produced six deliverables/reports that document the
work that it accomplished in fulfilment of its Terms of Reference (ToR). The FG
IdM was chartered by ITU-T Study Group 17 in December 2006 and worked through
September 2007.  The FG IdM’s ToR, scope, objectives and deliverables are
available from its web site using Username:
“fgidmuse� and Password “fgidmuse.� The FG IdM conducted six
face-to-face meetings from December 2006 until September 2007.  In addition,
several teleconferences were held that served as a follow-up for actions items
developed at the face-to-face meetings. In an ambitious schedule, the FG IdM
was very successful in achieving its primary goals and objectives. The results
of the FG IdM work are documented in the following freely available reports
which can be downloaded from its web site: 1.      FG IdM Report No.1: Report
on Activities Completed and Proposed;
2.      FG IdM Report No.2: Overview Report on the Deliverables;
3.      FG IdM Report No.3: Report on Identity Management Ecosystem and
Lexicon; 4.      FG
IdM Report No.4: Report on Identity Management Use Cases and Gap Analysis;
5.      FG IdM Report No.5: Report on Requirements for Global Interoperable
Identity Management;
6.      FG IdM Report No.6: Report on Identity Management Framework for Global
With the exception of the FG IdM Report No.6, Report on Global Interoperable
IdM Framework, all of the FG IdM reports are considered completed documents. 
Although FG IdM Report No.6 is incomplete, it is an excellent basis for future
work on a generic identity management framework that supports global
harmonization and bridging of disparate IdM solutions and systems within and
external to a network environment.  Consequently, we plan to continue the
development of this framework. Study Group 17 is using FG IdM Report No.4 as
the basis for developing a new draft Recommendation X.idmgap, and FG IdM Report
No.5 as the basis for a new draft Recommendation X.idmreq.  Study Group 17 will
also continue to up-date the lexicon.  Your comments on this approach are
welcomed and encouraged. We believe a consistent and structured approach needs
to be taken for IdM related work to support internetworking.  We expect our IdM
program to leverage work being performed by organizations such as yours.  We
will be focusing on IdM as it will be used in telecommunication/information and
communications technologies, involving topics such as: •     Provision of
credential, identifier, attribute, and pattern identity services with known
assurance levels to all entities; •     Discovery of authoritative Identify
Provider resources, services, and federations; •     Interoperability among
authorization privilege management platforms, identity providers and provider
federations, including Identity Bridge Providers; •     Security and other
measures for reduction of identity threats and risks, including protection of
identity resources and personally identifiable information; •     Auditing
and compliance, including policy enforcement and protection of personally
identifiable information; •     Usability, Scalability, Performance,
Reliability, Availability, Accounting, Internationalization, and Disaster
Recovery. We encourage you to use the information provided in FG IdM Reports. 
Specifically, we invite you to review and comment on: 1.      The Lexicon in FG
IdM Report No.3, to include additional definition of terms that are needed to
support your IdM activities; 2.      The IdM use cases and gaps analysis  in FG
IdM Report No.4, to include providing additional use cases that can be used to
derive requirements in your area of IdM work; 3.      The generic
query-response IdM architectural model used as the basis for the use case gap
analysis (Section 5.2 of FG IdM Report No.4) and the requirements discussion
(Section 5.1 of FG IdM Report No.5), to include suitability of this model to
your area of IdM work; 4.      The IdM framework components/services (Section
8.0 of FG IdM Report No.6), especially the IdM bridging function services
(Section 8.14 of FG IdM Report No.6); and 5.      The NGN Identity Plane
concept (Section 6.4.2 of FG IdM Report No.4 and Section 5.1 of FG IdM Report