[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER
Colin I really like your "tag-line" of producing an implementation/assurance profile. This really nails it for me and provides total clarity of what it is this TC is about. I've amended the draft Charter to reflect this. Only question in my mind is do we need to change the title of the TC to include the words "non-technical requirements" as we're not going to produce the technical spec bits of an assurance profile. It would make the TC title rather a mouthful - OASIS Public Administration Cloud Non-Technical Requirements Technical Committee (abbreviated as OASIS Public Cloud TC or PACNTR TC). John -----Original Message----- From: public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis Sent: 22 June 2012 01:59 To: public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER @Tony: Noting and agree with Tony's point about the additional (seemingly limitless) works in play right now .. @John: While I don't disagree with the fundamental thrust of the draft, I think it could do a slightly better job of contextualising what it is trying to achieve. My thought was that if 'cloud' was a spec of IT bits 'n pieces collected together to offer something (like SAML in spec of XML to offer authentication), then what we are proposing here is an implementation/conformance profile for government i.e. what features do governments want to see in cloud offerings to government. Once you have these, you can set up conformance programs to check to see if the features in cloud vendor x or y are indeed present. Taking the SAML analogy one step further, armed with the conformance profile, governments then might agree on how those features (or a sub set that can be commonly agreed upon) are configured, in what is usually understood as a deployment profile. This is where the 'levels' come in - the configuration of the features will vary depending on the level. If the SAML conformance and deployment profile notions were well enough understood, then applying that approach here might help further decompose what seems to be an amorphous list of stuff.. Linking back to Neil's reference to goings-on in Kantara, it's worth noting that Kantara does conformance testing and certification for SAML and will do for OpenID Connect when the spec is stable. And in the non technical spec area, it does assurance approval of identity IdPs and CSPs. So in essence, Kantara's work groups outputs are inputs to the assurance and certification programs. So to Neil's point, the outputs from the proposed Kantara CloudIDsec wg would inform the work in this group, and visa versa. Cheers Colin -----Original Message----- From: public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 7:52 a.m. To: public-sector-cloud-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER Thanks John. Here is an article I have just posted that clarifies the main ideas behind the Kantara CloudIDsec wg I have proposed for inclusion: http://cloudbestpractices.net/2012/06/21/ccommerce/ The main idea being the role of Kantara as approved Trust Framework provider can enable Cloud hosters to be regulated in a form relevant to GovClouds, meeting the requirements of various relevant Whitehouse & other programs. Cheers Neil. > Thanks to all for the messages of support so far and for the > constructive suggestions. We will of course need many more supporters > if we are to get the TC up and running but let's try and consolidate > what we have so far into > a possible Charter for the new TC. Attached is a draft and please feel > free to edit it as you see fit. It's important that we get this right > as it will be used to drive the work of the TC, so for instance have > we got the right set of Deliverables or are the other things we should > try and produce? > > > > > Assuming that we can make good progress on this over the next few > weeks then the plan would be to launch the new TC adjacent to the next > International Cloud Symposium (ICS 2012) which will be held in > Washington DC on 10th - 12th October. It was of course the ICS 2011 > event that was the origin of this new TC so having the first meeting > at ICS 2012 would be a very good piece of publicity and hopefully > would attract several new members. > > > > John > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > public-sector-cloud-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > public-sector-cloud-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org -- Neil McEvoy Founder and President Level 5 Consulting Group http://L5consulting.net
Attachment:
PACR-draftcharter-20120625.rtf
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]