# WG Meeting: 2025-07-22
## Agenda
- Review / voting dates
- Tentative interop at Authenticate 2025 (Carlsbad, CA, Oct 13-15)
- Issue 282: examples for complex matching [Issue 282](https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/issues/282)

## Attendees
- Atul Tulshibagwale (SGNL)
- Shayne Miel (Cisco)
- Robert Gallagher ()
- John Marchesini (Jamf)
- Apoorva Deshpande (Okta)
- Sean O'Dell (Disney)

## Notes
### Review / voting dates
- Review period ends Sunday, August 10, 2025
- Voting period begins: Monday, August 11, 2025
- Voting period ends: Monday, August 25, 2025

### Interop at the Authenticate Conference 2025
- [Interop resources](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_VA6sUh8jXSUDbM9N_hPrCk6ik8OlwRN?usp=sharing)

### Examples for complex matching
- When I was going through the examples for complex subjects, with arrays and adding examples
- But when I follow the language in the specs, "all fields in the complex subject must match"
- If there are array values, then the implication is that a subset of the array values is not an actual match. This is probably not the behavior we want.
- We will need a normative change to make this work.
- If the receiver has registered an alias subject, and it has an ip address, and the user is identified by an email address, then doesn't the Transmitter need to send an event about that user?
- (Atul) How to match a simple subject should be where the subject is defined
- (Atul) rfc9493 should inform us on how to match it
- (Shayne) 2 subjects match if they are identical is strong language and find it a hard way on changing this in a v1 but not v2.
- (Atul) might leave this as an open issue and not one to address right now.
- (Atul) IP Address subject types (Section 3.5.3) it does not tell you how to compare them and is problematic. A choice is needed now to change now or defer.
- (Sean) My vote is defer.
- (Atul) This is a clarity of spec issue and might be counter intuitive.
- (Atul) How do we treat alias matching and the rules are not clear.
- (Shayne) Most implementers don't use add subject so this is likely masked.
- (Atul) We have rules on matching in 8.1.3.1 in the SSF Spec
- (Atul) Events are about subject and matching is important
- (Atul) Leaning towards not updating in V1 and will state that as it still being an open issue.
- (Shayne) if we wait will it change anything in backwards compatibility? Wait to do it in V1 not V2?
(Atul/Shayne) - Consideration on backwards compatibility are subject to implementations.
(Atul) - So inform of normative changes in the voting period for voters to look at implementing forward with context. So you cant assume backwards compatibility.
(Apoorva) - Why is this not a problem for receivers for events they do not understand?

## Action Items
(Shayne) - Will mention it in the notes when talking to Mike Jones that the guidance will be offered in V2.