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

["Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>]

Paul, 

I agree that we need some kind of attribute to indicate authorization.
This is why I was leary of trying to use an "alpha version" of a
standard schema for the interop demo. If we use an alpha version
standard schema, then we should limit ourself to attributes that would
make sense in the final schema. If we use a custom schema, or a custom
schema that extends the alpha version standard schema, then we have more
more flexibility.

How about "title" to perform authorization? That would make sense in a
standard schema as well. If we do something like accesslevel or
contractlimit, then we really need to create a custom schema.

Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Madsen [mailto:p.madsen@entrust.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:57 PM
To: Jeff Bohren; provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] First cut at the SPML schema to use for the
interop


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
>