[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM
Gerry, I have already proposed an enhancment to SPML to allow for arbitrary XML to be used as provisioning data (see the OpenNetwork proposal for more details). This requires no encodings or transformations and allows XSD to be used to define the structure of the XML data. This also has the advantage of being fully backwards compatible with SPML 1.0. Why does this not meet your requirements for the transport of XML data? Jeff Bohren Product Architect OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval. -----Original Message----- From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:35 AM To: Jeff Bohren Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM Jeff, I think you might not be remembering our original proposal correctly. We have always advocated the use of a target object to hold schema. I plucked the following segment from an e-mail in the list archives dated February 28th of this year: ... <complexType name="ProvisioningTargetSchema"> <sequence> <any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </sequence> </complexType> <element name="ProvisioningTarget"> <complexType name="ProvisioningTargetType"> <sequence> <element name="identifier" type="tns:ProvisioningIdentifier" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> <element name="schema" type="tns:ProvisioningTargetSchema" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </sequence> </complexType> </element> ... You'll find this almost verbatim in our submission. It was never a suggested that the target schema had to be embedded in WSDL. As far as the portions of the SPML that should be kept, as I said earlier, and as you well know, our problems go to the heart of the spec. The SPML-specific schema language is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons that we've discussed at length already. The schema then dictates the data model - that XML-unfriendly attribute-value data model that we have also discussed at length already. The schema and data model then impact the operational interface. I don't want to suggest that we at an impasse but I do think that any proposals based on the SPML schema language will not come close to satisfying our requirements. The SPML must allow the use of XML Schema as the target schema language, at a minimum. Not as a tacked on band-aid but as a first-class schema language. It must also provide for the transport of XML data as XML data - no wierd transformations or encodings. The reasons for these requirements are obvious and particularly imperative in a Web Services context. Fixing these demands a major overhaul of SPML 1.0. Gerry |---------+----------------------------> | | "Jeff Bohren" | | | <jbohren@opennetw| | | ork.com> | | | | | | 12/01/2003 05:47 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Gearard Woods/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> | | Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------| Gerry, It would be helpful to make a proposal of what parts of the current SPML 1.0 specification should be kept as is and what should be replaced or modified. That way we can have a useful discussion on the mail list leading up to the next face to face. For instance you originally insisted that the only acceptable way to represent the meta-data of the provisioning target (i.e. the provisioning schema) was to represent it in XML Schema in WSDL so that client could be auto-generated. Now in your WS-Provisioning submission that approach is not taken. Instead the client gets the schema using a "FetchTargetRequest", and processes the "FetchTargetResponse" in order to read the schema. Since you have already abandoned a pure WSDL approach for representing schema, why could that not be merged into the current SPML schema mechanism? Jeff Bohren OpenNetwork Technologies -----Original Message----- From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com] Sent: Mon 12/1/2003 4:42 PM To: Jeff Bohren Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM I think it's fair to say that the submission is intended to act as a statement of direction, indicating the form that we would like to see the SPML take. We've been quite clear about the fundamental problems that we have with the current approach and on many occasions have pointed out that these issues need to be addressed at the foundations of the SPML. Reconciling the SPML1.0's schema and data models with the direction detailed in our submission is not trivial. It is certainly not a cut-and-paste exercise. The question to me is what portions of the SPML can be retained to meet our needs. At present those are few. |---------+----------------------------> | | "Jeff Bohren" | | | <jbohren@opennetw| | | ork.com> | | | | | | 11/25/2003 06:56 | | | AM | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------| The IBM Proposal looks to be a very good specification on it's own merits, but has no compatiblity with the current SPML 1.0 specification. What exactly is IBM proposing? Is IBM proposing the the current SPML specification be wholesale replaced with the IBM proposed specification? Or is IBM proposing this as input into the SPML 2.0 specification? If IBM is proposing this as input rather than a wholesale replacement, what parts does IBM feel are appropriate to incorporate into the SPML 2.0? Jeff Bohren Product Architect OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval. -----Original Message----- From: Darran Rolls [mailto:Darran.Rolls@waveset.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:46 AM To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM As you are no doubt aware, IBM has submitted a specification document to the PSTC for consideration as content and requirements for SPML Version 2.0. This submission can be found at [1]. Do you have questions regarding the intent, status or content of this submission? [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/provision/200310/msg00001.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]