CA will be participating in the SPML v2 Interoperability Event

** Posting on behalf of CA Development Team** - Look for some responses…

Hi all,

Our team recently began working on migrating some of the components in the Computer Associates eTrust IAM Suite from SPML V1 to supporting the V2 of the specification. We would be very interested in participating in the upcoming Interop event by providing both an RA and PSP.

I have some questions from beginning to work with the V2 specification that do not seem especially clear at this stage. Is anyone able to shed some light on them?

1. I gather that with the open content model, a requestor or a provider can specify additional operational attributes when issuing and responding to SPML requests via the “any” elements. Similarly, we can store any implementation specific metadata information about the DSML attributes, assuming that the provisioning schema is represented in the DSMLv2 Profile schema, in the “any” elements. But IMHO, the “permission” metadata, which can be set to either read-only, write-only, or read-write, is a common and useful metadata information that can be included as an optional attribute of an <dsmlprofile:attributeDefinitionReference> element. What do you think?

2. Is there a way for a provider to declare that it only supports a selected number of operations in one of the standard capabilities?

3. Why does an AddRequest have a separated “targetID” and “containerID” field while these fields are capable of being set as part of the “psoID”?

4. The “modificationMode” attribute of an <spmlcore:modification> element at the moment doesn’t have a default value. Should the default it to “replace”-mode to make things clearer?

5. Do you think that there should be a standard way for the requestor to request the provider to return the list of affected PSO’s when performing a bulkModify or a bulkDelete operation? The Add and Modify operations already support this.

6. How do I store the list of sub-requests in a BatchRequest? I can’t see it in the new Schema.

7. The Updates Capability seems like a useful operation, and there is an XSD for it, but there is no mention about it in the draft 9 of the specifications, can someone please explain why?

By the way, we are using draft 24 of the XSD. Thanks for your help.

Van Bui

eTrust, Computer Associates

Melbourne, Australia

provision message