Attendees & Representation

TSC Members may indicate their attendance by marking an X in the column to the right.

Community members may use @name tag to mark their attendance below the table. 


Deutsche Telekom AG

TSC Chair, Active Maintainerx

Deutsche Telekom AG

Active Maintainerx


Active Maintainerx


Active Maintainerx


TSC Deputy Chair, Active Maintainerx


EUC Representativex

Summit Tech

EUC Representative


Active Maintainerx


Active Maintainerx


EUC Representativex


TSC Deputy Chairx


Active Maintainer


Active Maintainerx
George Glass

TM Forum

TM Forum Representative

TM Forum

TM Forum Representative


GSMA Representative


GSMA Representativex

LF Staff: Casey Cain Evan Harrison 

Community: Jesús Peña Tanja de Groot Pierre Close Mark Cornall Murat Karabulut Nicholas Venezia Rafal Artych Samuel Adeyemo 


The project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

  • Review and approval of previous meeting minutes
  • Action Items Review
  • General Topics
    • Governance & project management issues
    • API Backlog
    • Commonalities
    • Identity & Consent Management
    • Release Management
  • Specific Topics
    • ...
  • Any Other Topics


Review and approval of previous meeting minutes

Action Item Review

Governance & Project Management issues

  • EasyCLA Introduction (Casey Cain )
    • Concerns of the EasyCLA deployment have been resolved.
    • Suggested that we deploy EasyCLA on or  
      • LF Staff will be on standby to resolve any last-minute issues
      • There were a few unforeseen issues on the LF side; can be deployed at any time now. Set the deployment date for 
      • Suggestion by Herbert to have a "EasyCLA" playground (test repository) to help community to understand/test how it works. +1 on the idea from Casey.

API Backlog (Ricardo Serrano Gutierrez )

Commonalities (Rafal Artych )

  • Release 0.4.0-rc.1 - in preparation
    • All PRs missing in alpha merged, new fixes proposed (PR#229, PR#234, PR#236, PR#238)
      • Device object simplification
        • Apply the mechanism to rely on the access_token (not providing the device object in the API request) for 3-legged access scenarios - Annex to API Design Guidelines 

        • networkAccessIdentifier  not removed from Device object, but not allowed in Commonalities 0.4.0 (Fall24 release)

        • Please review this PR
    • Target is to agree the RC.1 during Commonalities call on 24th of June and publish it during the week.
    • Question from Jesús Peña where this information should be kept: in ICM or in Commonalities. In the PR this is in annex of the design guideline - people have already approved to have this in the guideline.  

Identity & Consent Management (Jesús Peña  on behalf of Axel Nennker )

  • Create ICM Release Plan - #146
    • The team agreed to proceed with a release candidate directly, bypassing the alpha release, given the stability and closed scope of the current state.
  • Proposal to protect the /authorize endpoint for the Authorization Code Flow (Auth Code Flow) - RFC9101 - #128
    • Issue 128 will be excluded from the current release, and the scope is now fully defined, allowing the team to proceed with generating the release candidate.
  • Is the service API meant to validate the content of the access token and compare this against the API parameters ? - #174
    • There is a recognition of the need for validation of access tokens but differing views on the feasibility and scope of standardization. Some participants suggested documenting standard claims in access tokens, while others emphasized the need to leave implementation details to individual operators.
  • OIDC authorization code flow and/or CIBA - #176
    • GSMA highlighted the need for clarity on which authorization flow operators should implement when onboarded in Open Gateway.
    • ICM feedback: The decision on which authorization flow to implement is more of a business decision than a technical one. Operators should support the flows defined by CAMARA and be compliant with ICM Security & Interoperability profile, but specific implementation can be decided based on business needs and regulatory requirements. For instance, an operator using only one API that requires a specific flow can choose to implement just that flow if it's allowed by the business decision of Open Gateway. For specific APIs with unique requirements, the auth flow to implement may be dictated by the API's functionality (such as Number Verification API) and be documented by the API subproject.
  • No comments from the team - very good summary!

Release Management (Tanja de Groot Samuel Adeyemo )

  • Commonalities and ICM scope issues and alpha release PRs/releases are ready for TSC approval - Combined M0/M1 to be declared after that and notified to the all mailing list.
    • Question: How much time is needed for the TSC approval ?
      • Give one week for review of the release PRs and then assume lazy consensus if there are no open comments.
    • Tanja de Groot Send already in parallel information to all sub projects via "all" mailing list about the M2
    • Question: where do we post the "Request for scope and alpha/release candidate review" announcement? TSC mailing list or the RM mailing list ? If the latter, do we have sufficient TSC members on the RM mailing list?
      • Request for review should go to the TSC Mailing list. In addition the GitHub team @camaraproject/TSC_participants to be added as reviewer to the PRs
    • Delayed sending the message (per action previous TSC) to the all list due to an ongoing update of all the material (Update public release name - PR #35)
      • Proposal: combined M0/M1 message to be sent after TSC approval of Commonalities and ICM scope and alpha releases.
      • See above, information should be send already in parallel to the review of the release PRs of Commonalities and ICM.
  • 15 APIs proposed for the Fall24 meta release so far. All are currently target initial versions (v0.x) as public release. Possibly 1 or 2 may be proposed as stable public releases (NumberVerification and SimSwap)
    • Third candidate for stable: OTPvalidationAPI
    • Jose Luis Urien : We will have a discussion also in device location for some API to promote for stable.
      • Herbert: We can decide moving forward during the release cycle.
      • Tanja: till we can decide to promote or not to stable
      • Promoted API to stable should have live implementation (of previous released version) as listed here, and only reasonable amount of changes since then
  • Updated CHANGELOG_TEMPLATE and example PR available for review:
    • Question: How to proceed with the existing template in Commonaltities? Herbert's proposal: proceed as same way as we did it for the checklist
  • Release management issues closed. One pending PR review, one issue as backlog item remaining.
  • Tanja de Groot added that we can create 'public release' outside of meta release → This possibility has been documented.
  • Upcoming tasks: start looking at the APIs proposed for the meta-release.

Any Other Business

  • Nope.

Next Meeting

  • Next TSC Meeting will be on July 4th at 10:00 CEST / 08:00 UTC / 01:00 PST
  • Specific agenda topics backlog:
    • None so far - please feel free to propose topics

Action items

  • embedded above.