[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
Jeff,
I have to admit that I only glanced at your submission, assuming it was the
same approach you had propsed on the list some time ago. Looking at it
now, it does indeed offer a lot of benefits over SPML 1.0. It appears to
be incomplete though and I'd like to see a more thorough example if you
have one. For example, I'd like to see how something like the Liberty
profile schema is imported, more information on the "name" attribute in
your search request would be useful ("CommonName\cn" looks strange to me).
I'm also not sure that I understand the object reference example. It would
be useful to see the modified SPML core schema for this so that I can
understand exactly how it would work.
Of course, I still have an issue with the SPML-specific schema language.
You know my complaints:
- The language is incompatible with Web Services tools, or XML tools for
that matter - XML Spy won't generate a sample SPML document for you as an
example, off-the-shelf schema compilers such as Castor won't recognize it.
- The approach flies in the face of accepted Web Services practices and the
use of SPML schema essentially gets in the way of the XML Schema. If a
user is to describe their data in XML Schema, what's the point of SPML
schema?
- The identifier mechanisms are clumsy and is much better handled using
standard XML namespaces and URIs.
- The schema language is still directory-oriented and is not an XML schema
language. This is true also of DSMLv1 of course but it introduces
difficulties when dealing with XML. For example, in your object reference
example (and as I said I may not understand this properly), you define:
...
<attributeDefinition name="role"
type="urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1:1#Identifier"/>
...
<objectClassDefinition name = "role">
<memberAttributes>
<attributeDefinitionReference name = "cn" required = "true" />
<attributeDefinitionReference name = "description" />
<attributeDefinitionReference name = "password" />
</memberAttributes>
</objectClassDefinition>
...
The problem here of course is that the "type" of the role attribute is not
a role but an "identifier". This is handled much better in XML schema
languages that have strong typing and relate closely to their resultant XML
representation.
If backward compatibility is an issue, and I'm not sure how much of a
problem it could be at this point, then consider that the WS-Provisioning
proposal can easily transport SPML 1.0 schema and data. To me, this
approach offers a number of benefits including the tool compatibility and
Web Services emphasis that SPML lacks. As an example of how an SPML1.0
schema might be expressed in WS-Provisioning:
<wsp:ProvisioningTarget
xmlns:wsp="urn:ibm:names:ws:provisioning:0.1:core">
<wsp:identifier name="xyz123"/>
<wsp:schema>
<spml:schema xmlns:spml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1:0"
xmlns:dsml="urn:oasis:names:tc:DSML:2:0:core">
<spml:providerIdentifier providerIDType =
"urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1:0#URN">
<spml:providerID>urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML</spml:providerID>
</spml:providerIdentifier>
<spml:schemaIdentifier schemaIDType =
"urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1:0#GenericString">
<spml:schemaID>standard</spml:schemaID>
</spml:schemaIdentifier>
<spml:attributeDefinition name="objectclass"/>
<spml:attributeDefinition name="cn"/>
<spml:attributeDefinition name="uid"/>
...
<spml:objectClassDefinition name="person">
<spml:memberAttributes>
<spml:attributeDefinitionReference name="objectclass"
required="true"/>
<spml:attributeDefinitionReference name="cn"
required="true"/>
<spml:attributeDefinitionReference name="uid"/>
...
</spml:memberAttributes>
</spml:objectClassDefinition>
</spml:schema>
</wsp:schema>
</wsp:ProvisioningTarget>
If the SPML 1.0 had many compelling features that we could not afford to
lose then tacking on support for XML Schema and XML data would be a
worthwhile exercise. However, this is not really the case and the
retrofitting is going to result in a cumbersome specification that will be
difficult to understand and implement.
Gerry
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Jeff Bohren" |
| | <jbohren@opennetw|
| | ork.com> |
| | |
| | 12/02/2003 07:27 |
| | AM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> |
| cc: |
| 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
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
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]