Re: [provision] Standard Schema draft 4.

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

Since we're all reviewing this draft, I should mention a few additional 
errors/omissions that I found:

o The Person object-class should have CN and DN attributes.  These are 
missing (at least in my printout).

o There is a flaw in the membership model.  For example, Groups-Dynamic 
is implicitly direct, while Groups-Indirect is implicitly static.  
Direct-or-Indirect and Static-or-Dynamic are two separate dimensions.  
To truly represent the matrix, we'd need the following:
Groups-Direct-Static
Groups-Direct-Dynamic
Groups-Indirect-Static
Groups-Indirect-Dynamic
Groups-All

Obviously, not every provider will want to support all of these.  Also, 
some of these should be available only on-request.  By default, no 
provider would want to take the time to calculate (or use the bandwith 
required to return) all of the values of Groups-Indirect-Static or 
Groups-Indirect-Dynamic or Groups-All.  For that matter, even 
calculating the values of Groups-Dynamic is probably too expensive to 
return by default. That is why (of the Group-* attributes on page 15) 
only Groups-Direct has its name in bold.


Gary.P.Cole wrote:

> Took a while, but I've attached a PDF. 
>
>     * This Introduction discusses SIMPLEST only as a schema (and not
>       as a profile of SPML). The Protocol section has been removed
>       accordingly.
>     * The domain model is the same (although I've tweaked the names of
>       the two entities in the lower-right-hand corner of the diagram:
>       AccountTemplate and AccountAttribute).
>     * The Schema section now reflects the object-classes and
>       attributes from the spreadsheet that I sent to  (the list at the
>       time of) the last Face-to-Face.
>     * The Conformance section has been expanded.   It now discusses
>       extensions to the standard schema as well as arbitrary (i.e.,
>       undeclared extensions) object-classes and attributes.
>
> Obviously, this is just a draft, but it fairly represents the current 
> proposal.  This draft should serve as a basis for further discussion.
>
>     * I have not incorporated anything from SAP's submission to the
>       Standard Schema.  I intended to do that, but it took longer than
>       I expected merely to bring the draft up to date.
>     * It feels a little weird to propose a standard schema without
>       specifying a schema language.  Perhaps we can show how
>       (operations using) the standard schema would look in the DSML
>       Profile or SAML Profile or XSD Profile.
>     * The language in the Conformance section is still a bit
>       tortuous.  I can make the language clearer, given time, so what
>       I need first and most is comment on the *ideas* in this section.
>