*Attendees*
Michael Gettes, Duke
Chris Williams, University of Buffalo
Brendan Bellina, Notre Dame
John Paul Robinson, UAB
Peter St. Andre, Jabber
Ann West, Educause/Internet2
Jeanette Fielden, Internet2
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2

*Discussion*

Peter is hoping to get Steve information by the end of the year for their action item. Steve will also send a reminder to the I2IM list for links for the web page.
Michael reminded people to send use cases to the list. Steve O will touch base with Klaas and Egon about their ????

General Updates
The main XMPP document has gone through IETF last call but won’t move forward until a couple of other documents relating to end-to-end encryption and semantic mapping are finished. Those documents are in working group last call. And will then have to go through IETF last call. Peter believes that all of the documents will be submitted for approval in January.

There is interest in the DoD in using open source technologies and protocols for things such as white boarding, applications sharing, application management etc. some of which are XMPP based. They are interested in XMPP, because it is XML based and has well defined schemas. XMPP would be used in the contexts where it makes sense.

Michael suggested that it would be possible to coordinate between where Internet2 is working with higher education and the federal level and where Peter is working to promote federated identity management between higher education and the federal government.

Pseudonymous use case.
Brendan has mailed out an updated version of his use case. The section that was previously in the document concerning suggestions and implementations will be put in a second separate document. He has added a use case to justify the need for a persistent handler. Case studies were also added concerning when a person might reject a pseudonymous instant messaging contact.

The case where pseudonymous contact is refused an unsuccessful connect message would be returned that does not disclose if the e-mail address is valid. One example where this would apply is a spammer randomly trying addresses to see if they are valid. By not returning that information the receiving party’s privacy is protected
[AI] Brendan will add additional explanation to the rejecting a pseudonymous instant message case.
[AI} Brendan will add language about how the session information may not necessarily be useful in identifying the individual in a case such as the suicide hotline.

Is pseudo-anonymity needed around the vouching organization? I.e. someone within the federation has authenticated the individual but you don’t know who the organization or individual is. In the case where a professor has multiple students from multiple institutions, he might have only one student from an institution. In that case, simply knowing the institution would identify the student, so there is some practicality in obscuring the organization in certain circumstances. A rendezvous point that will handle the masking of the organization and the user will be needed.
[AI] Brendan will add the case for making the organization as well the user pseudonymous.

Peter can set up a group chat server for Internet2 at XMPP.org that could be used to talk about topics outside of the calls.
[AI] Peter: will e-mail the list to gauge interest in a group chat server at XMPP.org.

The next call planned for the 9th of January.