RE: [provision] First cut at the SPML schema to use for the interop

[Paul Madsen <p.madsen@entrust.com>]

Hi Jeff, comments on first draft of interop schema

1) I'd like to see an attribute that could carry some aspect of
authorization, e.g. role, level, userType etc. We need this information
communicatetd in some manner so that we can subsequently apply appropriate
access control based on it. 

Although the 'description' attribute in the current schema could serve,
given that the SPML messages will at some point likely be displayed to the
attendees, it would be preferable to have a more logical name for the
attribute

Perhaps we can avoid the issue of determining a list of meaningful values
for this attribute by using simple integer values, e.g.

<attr name="accessLevel">
	<value>1|2|3|4|5</value>
</attr>

or, perhaps more relevant to the scenario,

<attr name="contractLimit">
	<value>1000|10,000|100,000</value>
</attr>
 
2) only the 'cn' attribute is listed as required. Related to point 1) - we
would need the 'accessLevel' attribute (or whatever it is called) to be
required as well.) More generally, we should make all attributes that a PSP
will 'use' to be required. I don't think we want to be in the situation of
saying 'well if you had set this attribute in the form, you would have seen
........'

We will need to of course balance this against the usability issue of having
an attendee populating a long form with a wine glass in one hand and hor
d'ouerves in another. Hopefully multiple PSPs will be able to leverage
shared attributes. 

Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:22 PM
>To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [provision] First cut at the SPML schema to use for 
>the interop
>
>
>I apologize for just now getting to this. Attached is a first 
>cut of an SPML schema for the interop.
> 
> 
>Jeff Bohren
>OpenNetwork Technologies
>