[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission from IBM
Gerry,
I have already proposed an enhancment to SPML to allow for arbitrary XML
to be used as provisioning data (see the OpenNetwork proposal for more
details). This requires no encodings or transformations and allows XSD
to be used to define the structure of the XML data. This also has the
advantage of being fully backwards compatible with SPML 1.0.
Why does this not meet your requirements for the transport of XML data?
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: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:35 AM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0 submission
from IBM
Jeff,
I think you might not be remembering our original proposal correctly.
We have always advocated the use of a target object to hold schema. I
plucked the following segment from an e-mail in the list archives dated
February 28th of this year:
...
<complexType name="ProvisioningTargetSchema">
<sequence>
<any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="ProvisioningTarget">
<complexType name="ProvisioningTargetType">
<sequence>
<element name="identifier"
type="tns:ProvisioningIdentifier" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
<element name="schema"
type="tns:ProvisioningTargetSchema" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
</element>
...
You'll find this almost verbatim in our submission. It was never a
suggested that the target schema had to be embedded in WSDL.
As far as the portions of the SPML that should be kept, as I said
earlier, and as you well know, our problems go to the heart of the spec.
The SPML-specific schema language is unsatisfactory for a number of
reasons that we've discussed at length already. The schema then
dictates the data model - that XML-unfriendly attribute-value data model
that we have also discussed at length already. The schema and data
model then impact the operational interface.
I don't want to suggest that we at an impasse but I do think that any
proposals based on the SPML schema language will not come close to
satisfying our requirements. The SPML must allow the use of XML Schema
as the target schema language, at a minimum. Not as a tacked on
band-aid but as a first-class schema language. It must also provide for
the transport of XML data as XML data - no wierd transformations or
encodings. The reasons for these requirements are obvious and
particularly imperative in a Web Services context. Fixing these demands
a major overhaul of SPML 1.0. Gerry
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Jeff Bohren" |
| | <jbohren@opennetw|
| | ork.com> |
| | |
| | 12/01/2003 05:47 |
| | PM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: Gearard Woods/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
|
| cc: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
| Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML 2.0
submission from IBM |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------|
Gerry,
It would be helpful to make a proposal of what parts of the current SPML
1.0 specification should be kept as is and what should be replaced or
modified. That way we can have a useful discussion on the mail list
leading up to the next face to face.
For instance you originally insisted that the only acceptable way to
represent the meta-data of the provisioning target (i.e. the
provisioning
schema) was to represent it in XML Schema in WSDL so that client could
be auto-generated. Now in your WS-Provisioning submission that approach
is not taken. Instead the client gets the schema using a
"FetchTargetRequest", and processes the "FetchTargetResponse" in order
to read the schema. Since you have already abandoned a pure WSDL
approach for representing schema, why could that not be merged into the
current SPML schema mechanism?
Jeff Bohren
OpenNetwork Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Mon 12/1/2003 4:42 PM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] Discussion and analysis of SPML
2.0 submission from IBM
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]