Upload
alexandro-troupe
View
221
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PSTC F2F#4
February 11th & 12th 2003
Agenda
• Review Agenda• Define F2F Goals• Admin (accept minutes)• Burton Catalysts Proposal• Timeline & Project Plan Review• Core Operations Discussion• Request / Response Discussion• ExtendedRequest Discussion• Query Schema Discussion• Bindings Discussion• Specification Review• Next Steps & Action Items
F2F Goals
• Commitment on Burton Catalyst Proposal
• Committed timeline to submission of 1.0
• Complete core 1.0 schema
• Agree 1.0 specification document structure
• Defined sample XML for a simple example
• Define task lists and task owners for outstanding work items
Admin
• Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting January 20th 2003
• Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting February 3rd 2003
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Event– Burton Catalyst - July 9-11 2003 - San Francisco– Possible repeat event in EMEA fall of 2003 (not
connected or mandatory)– Usual attendee is CIO CSO, network architect, good
press profile and entire Burton consulting and analyst teams
– Premier north American event for the technical influencer and network architect
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Inter-op Goals– Show that SPML is real and facilitates interoperability between
vendors in the Identity Management and Enterprise Provisioning space
– Mirror the structure, goals and (hopefully success) of the SAML interop event held at Catalyst 2002
– Provide a real world “hard-stop” to aid in the deliver and true interoperability of SPML
– Gain healthy exposure for participating vendors
– Not to show any one product – interop HAS TO be focused on the open standard not on the vendor implementation. In return both OASIS and Burton will very publicly support the event
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Inter-op Structure– Separate SPML inter-op room - not part of the hospitality suites
(possible participant cost of $500)– Run concurrently with the hospitality suites – one night only– Possible private pre-view for press and Burton analyst earlier in
the day of interop– Setup day before the conference– Based on last years SAML interop we could expect heavy traffic
to the interop room– OASIS would broker the production of a “one-sheet” outline of
SPML, the interop event and the vendors participating. This could possibly in in the registration packs for ALL ATTENDEES!
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Inter-op Scenario– Pre-defined simple integration demo that shows the exchange of
service provisioning requests based on the SPML 1.0 schema and specification
– Emphasis on attendee participation – the attendee basically subscribes to a service that results in account creation across all vendor stations
– Each vendor would run a common SPML client and would issue SPML addRequests to the other participating vendors
– Those vendors that wish to show SPML enabled PST’s (resources) would be given a guarantee that at lest one PSP vendor would support request flows down to their application
– After successful subscription the attendee would be able to “see their account” existing in any/all of the participating vendors “systems”
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Interop commitment– Requires eight committed participants – So far we have:
Committed Likely Possible Contact
Waveset BMC Netegrity CriticalPath
OpenNetwork Microsoft Entrust Jamcracker
BusinessLayers IBM ePresence
Entrust Big4
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Demo scenario
Common RA
Vendor PSP
Vendor PSP
Vendor PSP
Vendor PSP
Vendor PST
Vendor PST
Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Next Steps– Vendor commitment!– Vote to accept submission with implied
commitment on part of those present– Complete Burton application on Catalyst site– Create a sub committee
• Define a detailed technical plan & LOE• Coordinate process
– Pre inter-op inter-op in mid June
Time Line & Project Plan
For submitting 1.0 specification
Time Line
• Burton proposal March 13th • Spec internal committee review start March 1st
• OASIS 30 day approval cycle start April 1st
• Spec date Middle of May• Pre inter-op glue party in Austin June
February 1st March 1st April 1st May 1st June 1st
Cata
lyst
Pre-inter-op test
Sub
mission
F2F
#4
Acceptance
Burton
decision
Deta
iled inter-op plan
Project Plan# Due
DateOwner
1 ExtendedRequest Schema•Resolve outstanding ExtendedRequest schema issues•XML Schema•Code sample
JeffBYoavK
2 Query Schema•Review/iterate over latest proposal until consensus reached•XML schema•Code sample
JeffBYoavK
4 Bindings • Open recommendations or spec detail• SOAP/WSS example with normative description• File based binding – in 1.0 or not??
??
5 SPEC - Specification example and description (NN) Editors
6 SPEC - General overview text & object model overview text (NN) Editors
7 SPEC - Introductions to system elements – describe a PST (NN) Editors
8 SPEC - Element introductions – Operations & R/R schema – description & XML samples (NN) Editors
9 SPEC - Example1 – Full code example – simple case that is a fully sample of the example used throughout the spec (NN)
Editors
10 SPEC - Example 2 – Second full code example – more complex possibly aggregated request sample (NN) Editors
11 SPEC - Core operations normative text Editors
12 SPEC - Request Response normative text Editors
13 SPEC - RA Functional Requirements (N) Editors
Project Plan# Due
DateOwner
14 SPEC - PSP Functional Requirements (N) Editors
15 SPEC - Request ID functional requirements (N) Editors
16 SPEC – PSO functional requirements (N) Editors
17 SPEC – PTD-ID functional requirements (N) Editors
18 SPEC – ExtendedRequest rules, usage guidelines & example (NN) Editors
19 SPEC – Conformance matrix & recommendations Editors
20 SPEC – Conformance tests Editors
21 SPEC – Final document editorial – references, index, formatting etc Editors
22 Catalyst Technical Plan• Detailed scenario description• Technical specs for RA & PSP for use in inter-op
DR
23 Catalyst Pre-Event Dry Run• Hosted in Austin??• 2 day glue party plan, complete lab setup• Test to technical plan
24 Inter-op press and briefing materials• Help with release• PPT models of inter-op
Core Operations
Review
Core Operations
• Review
• Approve
• Thoughts on normative text
Request / Response
Review
Request / Response
• Review
• Approve
• Thoughts on normative text
ExtendedRequest
Discussion & Review
ExtendedRequest
• Review revised schema
• Resolve ProvID issue
• Approve
• Discuss extensibility section of specification– Normative text on use of ExtendedRequest– Example
• Define lead for above
Query Schema
Discussion & Planning
Query Schema
• Status
• Model
• 1.0 time line and criticality for interoperability
Bindings
Discussion & Planning
Bindings
• Level set – SPML bindings• Should this be a separate document?• Is a file based adapter still in scope for 1.0?• How is the SOAP binding effected by WSS
delivery date?• Lead to define this for the specification?
Specification
Specification
• Examples– Example 1 (& throughout doc)
• Simple case AddRequest/AddResponse• Basic user account oriented service that provisions
an email (exchange) account• SOAP request for new service from known client• Use SPML:1.0:core#DN PSO-ID• Pre-defined simple schema
Specification
• Examples– Example 2
• Complex aggregated case AddRequest/Response• Request for “AggregatedService” Mail & Directory• RA-PSP1 – PSP1 creates mail account (just like
example 1)• PSP1-PSP2 – PSP2 creates directory entry• PSP1 returns results to user• Use SPML:1.0:core#DN• Pre-defined merged schema
Specification
• Conformance– What does conformance mean for SPML?– Review current matrix– Should we provide “automated” tests?– WS-I profiles?
Next Steps
Action items review