F2F Goals Commitment on Burton Catalyst Proposal Committed timeline to submission of 1.0 Complete core 1.0 schema Agree 1.0 specification document structure Defined sample XML for a simple example Define task lists and task owners for outstanding work items
Admin Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting January 20 th 2003 Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting February 3 rd 2003
Burton Catalysts Proposal Event –Burton Catalyst - July 9-11 2003 - San Francisco –Possible repeat event in EMEA fall of 2003 (not connected or mandatory) –Usual attendee is CIO CSO, network architect, good press profile and entire Burton consulting and analyst teams –Premier north American event for the technical influencer and network architect
Burton Catalysts Proposal Inter-op Goals –Show that SPML is real and facilitates interoperability between vendors in the Identity Management and Enterprise Provisioning space –Mirror the structure, goals and (hopefully success) of the SAML interop event held at Catalyst 2002 –Provide a real world “hard-stop” to aid in the deliver and true interoperability of SPML –Gain healthy exposure for participating vendors –Not to show any one product – interop HAS TO be focused on the open standard not on the vendor implementation. In return both OASIS and Burton will very publicly support the event
Burton Catalysts Proposal Inter-op Structure –Separate SPML inter-op room - not part of the hospitality suites (possible participant cost of $500) –Run concurrently with the hospitality suites – one night only –Possible private pre-view for press and Burton analyst earlier in the day of interop –Setup day before the conference –Based on last years SAML interop we could expect heavy traffic to the interop room –OASIS would broker the production of a “one-sheet” outline of SPML, the interop event and the vendors participating. This could possibly in in the registration packs for ALL ATTENDEES!
Burton Catalysts Proposal Inter-op Scenario –Pre-defined simple integration demo that shows the exchange of service provisioning requests based on the SPML 1.0 schema and specification –Emphasis on attendee participation – the attendee basically subscribes to a service that results in account creation across all vendor stations –Each vendor would run a common SPML client and would issue SPML addRequests to the other participating vendors –Those vendors that wish to show SPML enabled PST’s (resources) would be given a guarantee that at lest one PSP vendor would support request flows down to their application –After successful subscription the attendee would be able to “see their account” existing in any/all of the participating vendors “systems”
Burton Catalysts Proposal Interop commitment –Requires eight committed participants –So far we have: CommittedLikelyPossibleContact WavesetBMCNetegrityCriticalPath OpenNetworkMicrosoftEntrustJamcracker BusinessLayersIBMePresence EntrustBig4
Burton Catalysts Proposal Demo scenario Common RA Vendor PSP Vendor PST
Burton Catalysts Proposal Next Steps –Vendor commitment! –Vote to accept submission with implied commitment on part of those present –Complete Burton application on Catalyst site –Create a sub committee Define a detailed technical plan & LOE Coordinate process –Pre inter-op inter-op in mid June
Time Line & Project Plan For submitting 1.0 specification
Time Line Burton proposal March 13 th Spec internal committee review start March 1 st OASIS 30 day approval cycle start April 1 st Spec date Middle of May Pre inter-op glue party in Austin June February 1stMarch 1stApril 1stMay 1stJune 1st Catalyst Pre-inter-op test Submission F2F #4 Acceptance Burton decision Detailed inter-op plan
Project Plan #Due Date Owner 1ExtendedRequest Schema Resolve outstanding ExtendedRequest schema issues XML Schema Code sample JeffB YoavK 2Query Schema Review/iterate over latest proposal until consensus reached XML schema Code sample JeffB YoavK 4Bindings Open recommendations or spec detail SOAP/WSS example with normative description File based binding – in 1.0 or not?? ?? 5SPEC - Specification example and description (NN)Editors 6SPEC - General overview text & object model overview text (NN)Editors 7SPEC - Introductions to system elements – describe a PST (NN)Editors 8SPEC - Element introductions – Operations & R/R schema – description & XML samples (NN)Editors 9SPEC - Example1 – Full code example – simple case that is a fully sample of the example used throughout the spec (NN) Editors 10SPEC - Example 2 – Second full code example – more complex possibly aggregated request sample (NN)Editors 11SPEC - Core operations normative textEditors 12SPEC - Request Response normative textEditors 13SPEC - RA Functional Requirements (N)Editors
Project Plan #Due Date Owner 14SPEC - PSP Functional Requirements (N)Editors 15SPEC - Request ID functional requirements (N)Editors 16SPEC – PSO functional requirements (N)Editors 17SPEC – PTD-ID functional requirements (N)Editors 18SPEC – ExtendedRequest rules, usage guidelines & example (NN)Editors 19SPEC – Conformance matrix & recommendationsEditors 20SPEC – Conformance testsEditors 21SPEC – Final document editorial – references, index, formatting etcEditors 22Catalyst Technical Plan Detailed scenario description Technical specs for RA & PSP for use in inter-op DR 23Catalyst Pre-Event Dry Run Hosted in Austin?? 2 day glue party plan, complete lab setup Test to technical plan 24Inter-op press and briefing materials Help with release PPT models of inter-op
Bindings Level set – SPML bindings Should this be a separate document? Is a file based adapter still in scope for 1.0? How is the SOAP binding effected by WSS delivery date? Lead to define this for the specification?
Examples –Example 1 (& throughout doc) Simple case AddRequest/AddResponse Basic user account oriented service that provisions an email (exchange) account SOAP request for new service from known client Use SPML:1.0:core#DN PSO-ID Pre-defined simple schema
Specification Examples –Example 2 Complex aggregated case AddRequest/Response Request for “AggregatedService” Mail & Directory RA-PSP1 – PSP1 creates mail account (just like example 1) PSP1-PSP2 – PSP2 creates directory entry PSP1 returns results to user Use SPML:1.0:core#DN Pre-defined merged schema
Specification Conformance –What does conformance mean for SPML? –Review current matrix –Should we provide “automated” tests? –WS-I profiles?