[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: UDDI AG meeting and SAML: SAML in UDDI and XQuery subsets.
Dave, First of all, it is my understanding that the AG meeting is covered by an NDA. I would be happy to entertain technical discussions of your points below and will respond on the AG mailing list... (and will copy them so that they can participate in this discussion) which for those of you who are not members is quite easy to join.....and I would encourage you to do so... see http://www.uddi.org/community.html. Second, you have taken several things out of context. I also find it a bit disconcerting that you have intermixed private conversations we had outside the AG forum with discussions in the meeting. I don't believe you actually articulated your feelings about these points within the AG meeting itself. This is unfortunate because I would have then had the opportunity to respond. My perspective on Single Sign On, and Joe Pato and Bob Blakely can support me on this, ( since I recall lengthy discussions on this topic at the Open Group) is that it is an overloaded term. What I propose to do within UDDI is find out what problem exactly we are trying to solve before we start architecting solutions. Maryann again, more comments on the AG list so join up everyone! :) you know you need more email! "Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com> on 06/22/2001 03:13:42 AM To: oasis sstc <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: UDDI AG meeting and SAML: SAML in UDDI and XQuery subsets. I attended the UDDI AG meeting this week, and a few SAML related items came up. The use of SAML for SSO onto multiple UDDI repositories was questioned strongly by Maryanne Hondo of IBM. The logic is that if everything is replicated, why support SSO? Personally, I think this ought to be supported to support transition between public and private registries, which have different data sets. I lobbied Maryanne to support model extensions for security. This would allow a business entity to specify in standard tModel the security mechanisms it supported, ie username/password and SAML. This is not a security requirement per se, but more of modelling requirement. We may want SAML to formally liase with UDDI on these and other issues. On a somewhat related note, I supported Vadim of BEA's lobbying for the use of XQuery to query UDDI repositories. There was strong resistance to use of the full spec. I suggested publicly and privately that a subset of XQuery be used. Chris Kurt of Microsoft and overall UDDI lead was extremely interested in this idea. I further suggested that UDDI formally respond to the XQuery working drafts, indicating what features it may/would be interested in subsetting. I also think that SAML should do this, and will volunteer to write a draft no matter what SAML decides to do on SAML ver 1.0 wrt XQuery. This serves a few purposes: 1) I'm hoping that requests from UDDI and/or SAML will place pressure on XQuery to formally subset or profile XQuery; 2) If UDDI can place pressure, they may do some of the work that SAML could then pick up; 3) Increase the likelihood of lightweight XQuery implementations, removing some of the SAML vendor concerns about complexity; 4) if any members of the XQuery WG (including the chair?) have inclinations to do profiles or subsets of XQuery, these could be powerful motivators. Cheers, Dave Orchard XML Architect Jamcracker Inc., 19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 p: 408.864.5118 m: 604.908.8425 f: 408.725.4310 www.jamcracker.com - Sounds like a job for Jamcracker.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC