[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] First cut at the SPML schema to use for the interop
Cross-over... How about the following list for the "titles" then: BasicClerk ReceivableClerk CustomerRelations PersonalAssistant Electrician Mechanic WarehouseHand ProductionManager We should all be able to deduce/apply some rule to these to govern some provisioning action (even if it's the same action and the attribute simply gets stored as a PST-D attribute... ========================================================= Darran Rolls http://www.waveset.com Waveset Technologies Inc drolls@waveset.com (512) 657 8360 ========================================================= > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Madsen [mailto:p.madsen@entrust.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:30 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, 'Title' works, it does imply us agreeing on the list of allowed > values that make some sort of sense in the scenario context, e.g. > junior-contractor, senior-contractor, customer-relations, etc > > paul > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com] > >Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:10 PM > >To: Paul Madsen; provision@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [provision] First cut at the SPML schema to use for the > >interop > > > > > >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 > >> > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > http://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]