[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-charter-2.0-draft-02.docuploaded
Mike, I understand your view but my point is that the monolithic approach has in the past has proven this is very problematic (also Jamie Lewis of Burton Group gave a very good talk about composibility at the Catalyst conference around the WS-* specifications). Also SAML is not a choice for all end consumers, thus the end customer gets into a take it or leave it situation (which is not good for a standard). The current approach in the SS-TC seems to work well for Boeing but there are other customers where this is not a choice and going down the route of a componentization model solves both set of requirements and a broader sets of customers. I hope this helps further explain my posting. Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122 |---------+----------------------------> | | "Beach, Michael | | | C" | | | <michael.c.beach@| | | BOEING.COM> | | | | | | 11/13/2003 04:05 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org> | | cc: "Whitlock, Stephen" <stephen.whitlock@BOEING.COM> | | Subject: RE: [security-services] Groups - sstc-saml-charter-2.0-draft-02.doc uploaded | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| I would agree with the merits of componentization and the power of mix-and-match capabilities. However, as an end consumer our interest is ultimately interoperable products. We believe the ability for us to improve the means by which we do business with our customers, partners, and suppliers can be accomplished through ease of use and reduction in administration. We see this accomplished by delivering interoperable SSO and identity federation. So although technology design principles suggest separation of these standards as a good thing, it would not seem to lead to an interoperable solution for our business needs. I think the flexibility you have proposed will allow the vendors to 1) pick and choose the standards to be implemented in their products thus confounding interoperability, or 2) force the vendors to implement all combinations of the specifications/standards which adds complexity to our deployments and burns vendor resources (which we as a customer ultimately pay for). Therefore Boeing is in favor of the single package concept that facilitates company to company business collaboration. Having many ways to assemble the pieces sounds too much like what we have today. Mike Beach Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]