[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] Latest Draft Use Cases
Colleagues - Some comments ...
1. I
suggest putting the glossary up front and limiting it to just those terms that
are unique to our domain. There is no need to provide definitions for XML,
User, System, Subject, SPML, Service, Security, Resource, Organization,
End-user, External enterprise, Credential, Identity (twice), Attribute, Actor,
Administrator. The common English usage is fine. The text uses the
term "target". So, delete the terms "resource",
"managed resource", "account" and "operating system
account". PSP-ID is not used in the text.
2. Is
there confusion between vId and PSU-ID? Surely a single term will suffice
here. If so, PSU-ID seems clearer. The discussion of identifiers
sometimes gets confusing. The point is (surely) that the specification
will not require use of a single common namespace. Rather entities are
allowed to choose namespaces and names by local bilateral agreement. So
uniqueness exists only within those local agreements. The entity that
enforces uniqueness has to be identified. Sometimes it is the RA,
sometimes the PSP and sometimes it is the PST.
3. On
line 126 (and other similar locations), suggest using "relationship",
instead of "model".
4. On
line 143, suggest adding "In this use case, the PSP chooses the
PSU-ID."
5. In
Use Case 5, add PST to Actors section.
6.
On line 241, replace "The requested PSU exists managed by PSP" by " PSU-ID exists in
the PSP".
7.
Line 246 is not clear.
8.
On line 255, replace "PSP
updates internal model to map PSTD-ID to PSU-ID" by "PSP updates record mapping PSTD-ID to
PSU-ID"
9.
In Use Case 6, add PST to Actors section.
10.
In line 273, replace "The requested PSU exists
managed by PSP" by "PSU exists in the
PSP"
11. In
line 282, it is not clear why the RA has to deal with the PSTD-ID. Surely,
it should deal only in PDU-IDs.
12. In
lines 276 to 283, exchanges between the RA and PSP are
missing.
13. In
Use Case 7, add PST to Actors section.
14. In
lines 306 to 313, exchanges between the RA and PSP are
missing
15. In
line 309, delete " 1.c. PST"
16. In
line 345, clarify to whom the PSTD-ID is unique.
17. In
Use Case 11, clarify whether the PSTD-ID is deleted, or just the
PSTD
18. In
line 457, replace "PR-ID status check is
for" by "PR-ID for the request whose status is being
checked"
19.
In line 458, explain what "operation type" is
20.
In Use Case 20, consider using XACML for the filtering
function
21.
In line 504, delete "therefore", it is
tautological.
22.
In line 526, delete "to"
All
the best. Tim.
-----------------------------------------
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC