Stephen
I understand that. However, if the language stands as proposed, I believe
it will cause confusion. eIDAS is regional. My proposed language was
intended to acknowledge that fact.
Also, I don't believe it is explicit that this is a 3rd party credential.
As I read it (and I admit I may
To be honest, this section has been causing me concerns for some time.
However, I was waiting for some additional clarification on how it would be
implemented. How exactly qualifying schemes were going to be identified and
included. This feels arbitrary. In addition, from experience,
Hi Judith -
The text in question allows a CA to look at a third-party cert associated
with a signature and, if it's issued under an approved framework, the CA can
accept the individual identity attributes in the cert as verified.
When the BR was published it laid out acceptance criteria in
Hi Judith,
As I understand it, the proposed change is purely additive. That is, currently
there are no approved frameworks in the SBRs meaning that there is no way for a
compliant CA to rely upon a digital signature as evidence for the collection of
Individual identity attributes (or any other
Stephen
My primary concern with the proposed change is that once it finds it's way
into the BR, anyone not in the EU will be eliminated from trusting existing
digital signatures as evidence. For example, here in the U.S., the U.S.
Government has an extremely robust digital credential based on a
## Minutes of SMCWG
April 10, 2024
These are the Approved Minutes of the meeting described in the subject of this
message. Corrections and clarifications where needed are encouraged by reply.
## Attendees
Abhishek Bhat - (eMudhra), Adrian Mueller - (SwissSign), Adriano Santoni -
