RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM

[Gearard Woods <gewoods@us.ibm.com>]

I think it's fair to say that the submission is intended to act as a
statement of direction, indicating the form that we would like to see the
SPML take.  We've been quite clear about the fundamental problems that we
have with the current approach and on many occasions have pointed out that
these issues need to be addressed at the foundations of the SPML.
Reconciling the SPML1.0's schema and data models with the direction
detailed in our submission is not trivial.  It is certainly not a
cut-and-paste exercise.  The question to me is what portions of the SPML
can be retained to meet our needs.  At present those are few.



|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Jeff Bohren"    |
|         |           <jbohren@opennetw|
|         |           ork.com>         |
|         |                            |
|         |           11/25/2003 06:56 |
|         |           AM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       <provision@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                             |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM                                      |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




The IBM Proposal looks to be a very good specification on it's own merits,
but has no compatiblity with the current SPML 1.0 specification. What
exactly is IBM proposing? Is IBM proposing the the current SPML
specification be wholesale replaced with the IBM proposed specification? Or
is IBM proposing this as input into the SPML 2.0 specification?

If IBM is proposing this as input rather than a wholesale replacement, what
parts does IBM feel are appropriate to incorporate into the SPML 2.0?


Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc

Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software.
Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to
www.opennetwork.com/eval.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Darran Rolls [mailto:Darran.Rolls@waveset.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:46 AM
      To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
      Subject: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission
      from IBM

      As you are no doubt aware, IBM has submitted a specification document
      to the PSTC for consideration as content and requirements for SPML
      Version 2.0.  This submission can be found at [1].  Do you have
      questions regarding the intent, status or content of this submission?

      [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/provision/200310/msg00001.html