Does 'identity metasystem' not imply "a pluralism of operators and technologies"? Isn't this even almost a law?
If so, should a TC focused on a single (albeit important) identity technology claim within its name the 'meta' scope?
The OASIS Identity Metasystem Interoperability (IMI) Technical Committee will work to increase the quality and number of interoperable implementations of Information CardsThe IMI TC's mandate respects the 'pluralism of operators' required by the metasystem definition, but not the other piece.
Nb: Any comment that includes any combination of 'forgot SAML token' will be summarily rejected.