Exists (was "Re: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState")

["Gary Cole" <gary.cole@waveset.com>]

Title: Message

I'm not that hard-core about "exists", although I do found it very useful.  

 

In our product, the PSP uses this to record whether each account has been provisioned. The master record (or virtual identity, in our parlance) may not have been fully provisioned (or reprovisioned) to that target, so it's important to know whether the account already exists.  The target may have been down, or it may be that the target is updated only on a certain schedule.

 

The "exists" attribute is also used when the PSP provisions to a target.  If the "exists" attribute says that the account already exists, the PSP performs an update rather than an add.  In this case, it is an error if the account is not found on the target.  This indicates that the account was deleted natively (without using the PSP).  Similarly, if the "exists" attribute says that the account does not already exist, the PSP performs an add rather than an update.  If the account already exists on the target, this could be an error.

 

Reconciliation also uses the "exists" attribute.  Each account is classified by comparing what the PSP believes to what the target says.  If the PSP says the account exists and the target agrees, then the account is CONFIRMED.  If the PSP says the account exists and the target says it does not, then the account is DELETED.  If the PSP says that the account does not exist and the target says it does, the account is FOUND.  If the PSP says that the account does not exist and the target agrees, then the account is MISSING.  Correlation adds more slots to the classification scheme, but you get the idea.

 

Finally, it seems like an attribute like "exists" might be useful in the result of a bulk "get".  I'm sure that there are other ways to represent the absence of a provisioned object, but if the result needs to show what was supposed to be created (but does not exist or no longer exists on the target), then an "exists" attribute might be handy.

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we can figure this out later.  The main idea on the table seems to be the approach of defining multiple interfaces (and your suggestion that these be tied together with a common schema).

 

Gary

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Bohren

To: Gary Cole

Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:02 PM

Subject: RE: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

I am not real comfortable about the "exists" state, as that seems to duplicate functionality of asynchrous requests. I don't see a difference between a PSO that is in state exists=false versus an add request to create a PSO where the add request is in pending state.

 

One good example is an "active" state. An object class called "suspendable" could be defined that defines a state attribute called "active". Thus an object class that had "suspendable" as one of it's base classes could be suspended or restored using state operations. Thus an object class that respresented a SAP account would inherit "suspendable" where as an object class the respresented a Solaris account would not.

 

I don't think a listSupportedState attributes is needed, since it would duplicate what coudl already be accomblished via standard schema.

 

 

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: Gary Cole [mailto:gary.cole@waveset.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:32 AM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

This sounds interesting.  Defining multiple interfaces (as Gerry suggests) sounds like a reasonable way to tease apart the facets that interest some (but not necessarily all) of us.  Tying these to a common schema (as Jeff B suggests) seems like a reasonable way to keep the whole thing from flying apart.

 

I need a little more help imagining how we'd structure this.  I wanted to define a bunch of common state-related attributes, but Jeff B and others point out that not all of these apply to all types of accounts.  Perhaps none of these state-related attributes (beyond "exists") apply to some kinds of provisioned object.

 

I had imagined calling a method like:

    State getProvisionedState(PSO-ID);

 

For an Account, I'd get back all the attributes that apply:

    <State psoId='ID' exists='true' disabled='false' disableDate='NONE' enableDate='NONE' expired='false' expireDate='DATE' />

 

For a provisioned object that supports only "exists", I'd get back only "exists":

    <State psoId='ID' exists='true'/>

 

But it sounds to me from the discussion above, that I might have to define a different schema for each combination of attributes.  Am I right about that, or could 'Stateful' contain our "starter kit" of common state-related attributes?

 

Would each kind of provisioned object have to define in its schema which state-related attributes it supports?

Or would I just call a different method (e.g., #listSupportedStateAttributes)? 

Or could I figure this out just from the set of attributes returned by #getProvisionedState(PSO-ID)?

 

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your suggestion.  If so, perhaps we should talk offline (rather than email everyone).

 

Gary

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Bohren

To: Gearard Woods ; Jeff Larson

Cc: Gary Cole ; provision@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:51 PM

Subject: RE: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

I would not be opposed to having mulitple provisioning interfaces, provided it was tied to a standard schema that normatively defined what interfaces where appropriate for what object classes. The clients still need to know what interfaces would apply to what PSOs.

 

For example the SPML core operations could apply to all object classes but the SPML state operations may only apply to an object class that inherits from a "Stateful" object class in a standard schema (note that SPML 1.0 supports multiple inheritance so this is easy). This way the schema for the resource does not even need to extend an abitrary "Account" schema, it merely needs to extend  the "Stateful" schema.

 

Jeff Bohren

OpenNetwork

-----Original Message-----
From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thu 3/25/2004 6:01 PM
To: Jeff Larson
Cc: Gary Cole; Jeff Bohren; provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

I agree that granularity of the calls is important and it really shouldn't take 42 calls to determine the state of an object - a single call should suffice. I think we can model state effectively and still minimize the traffic needed to manage it.

Jeff (Jeff B) has also raised the slippery slope argument, and my take on it is that we should provide an interoperable way to do the things we feel are a core part of the provisioning process. There is a line here between what is horizontal to provisioning and what is resource-specific. State management is obviously important and passwords have come up before, although Jeff B would argue that state is not even relevant to most resources and is only applicable to accounts.

The provisioning process is obviously not the same thing to all people. We have disagreement even down to the fundamentals of the provisioning model. Perhaps a way to tackle these different viewpoints is to divide and conquer. Imagine that we split up the problem into a number of interfaces:

SPML core - Basic provision (add), deprovision (delete), modify, list/search
SPML state - An interface and schema representing state management (lifecycle included or separate?)
SPML events - An interface and schema for event notifications
SPML password - Password management perhaps
SPML relationships - TBD

Implementors must publish core to be SPML compliant. They may then in turn overlay any of the other interfaces to offer enhanced provisioning capabilities. These would be simple interfaces with minimal schema but would be complementary and all take advantage of the core schema. Vendors who deal with directory-style interfaces need go no further than the core interface while others may wish to offer the full suite. Obviously these categories are just off the top of my head but does this sound like an approach that has promise?
Gerry


"Jeff Larson" <Jeff.Larson@waveset.com>

"Jeff Larson" <Jeff.Larson@waveset.com> 03/25/2004 02:20 PM

To: Gearard Woods/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, "Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com> cc: "Gary Cole" <Gary.Cole@waveset.com>, <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

I haven't been following this that closely, but I like aspects of both approaches. I like
the notion that you can carry out near-universal operations like disable, enable, and expire,
in a schema independent way. But I also like the notion that I can at least obtain the current state
from the model so I don't have to make 42 web services calls to get everything I want to display.

I guess as long as the schema is arbitrary we can have it both ways. If I choose
to use fine grained standard operations I can. If the PSP exposes the same functionality
through the model, I can use that too, though I will be outside of the SPML spec.

But we're on a slippery slope here. Almost every account will have an associated
password, email address, and full name. Do we then provide individual operations
to get and set those so we can access them in an standard way without having to be
bothered with PSP specific schema? How far does this go?

Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:35 PM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: Gary Cole; provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState

I think there's a fundamental difference here even though the intent may be the same. Basically, we're all trying to model state and provide some kind of standardized view of it to the outside world so that we can offer interoperability. By placing state in the resource schema you have immediately abandoned the possibility that arbitrary resource schema may be supported, which I believe to be important. You are also now requiring a mapping from the "standard" schema to the real resource schema. On the other hand, by placing the emphasis on the service provider and providing an operational interface to effect state changes, the provider can now apply its knowledge of the resource to make the state change however it wishes to do so and places no restrictions on the resource schema.
Gerry

---

<<pic13953.gif>>