[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: OASIS Provisioning Services TC
Hi all, Here is the information on a deployment/provisioning related TC in OASIS. The purpose of the OASIS Provisioning Services Technical Committee (PSTC) is to define an XML-based framework for exchanging user, resource, and service provisioning information. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=provision They developed SPML (Service Provisioning Markup Language) V2.0. http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis-news-2006-04-11.php CDDLM-WG thinks SPML is orthogonal to their work. Thus same as SDD TC. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Hiro, > > Below is my evaluation from about 2-3 years ago, that happened before I > started CDDLM or around that time: > > "SPML > Service Provisioning Markup Language (SPML, www.openspml.org) is an > OASIS (www.oasis-open.org) standard, which defines an XML- based > framework for exchanging information between Provisioning Service > Points. It is a framework for the exchange of user, resource, and > service provisioning information. > SPML is being defined by the OASIS Provisioning Services Technical > Committee. It is focused on user provisioning. Their definition is > "Provisioning is the automation of all the steps required to manage > (setup, amend & revoke) user or system access entitlements or data > relative to electronically published services". Thus, it addresses a > subset of the lifecycle services and attributes that we desire. > The XML schema for SPML has a well-defined type system, but, while it > could be extended to cover the configuration of more than just > identities, it really doesn't provide anything but the barest foundation > for such extension. Further, each service object is treated as an > independent entity. There is no provision for modeling any kind of > relationship between them." > > > I read the new spec, and while it evolved it is still orthogonal to what > CDDLM does. The closest I can see is that some time in the future CDDLM > builds on top of the SPML protocol. I will also touch base with the rest > of the CDDLM team during our forthcoming meeting. > > In a summary 100% of the CDL and component model does not depend or > conflict with SPML. Small fraction of deployment API might be dependent > on it (if we decide that we implement SPML protocol as a basis), but I > will have to confirm this with Steve. In any case, there is no immediate > action item on this. > > Thanks, > > Dejan. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Hiro and Dave, > > The rest of the team agrees with my estimate, see from the end of the > notes from this morning: > > ---- > "5. SPML discussion > > Stuart: very high level protocol, does not say anything about how to do > things. Has nothing to do with deployment. Telco works this way, how to > provision a circuit. No desire to go anywhere near SPML." > ---- > > The rest of the team agreed, I did not make any more detailed note on > this topic. We can address it at GGF17 if there is a need. > > Thanks, > > Dejan.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]