PSTCF2F

1
PSTC F2F4

• February 11th 12th 2003

2
Agenda

• Review Agenda
• Define F2F Goals
• Admin (accept minutes)
• Burton Catalysts Proposal
• Timeline Project Plan Review
• Core Operations Discussion
• Request / Response Discussion
• ExtendedRequest Discussion
• Query Schema Discussion
• Bindings Discussion
• Specification Review
• Next Steps Action Items

3
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

4
Admin

• Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting
  January 20th 2003
• Vote to accept minutes of committee meeting
  February 3rd 2003

5
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

6
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

7
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!

8
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
  PSTs (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

9
Burton Catalysts Proposal

• Interop commitment
• Requires eight committed participants
• So far we have

10
Burton Catalysts Proposal

• Demo scenario

Vendor PSP
Vendor PST
Vendor PSP
Common RA
Vendor PSP
Vendor PST
Vendor PSP
11
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

12
Time Line Project Plan

• For submitting 1.0 specification

13
Time Line
February 1st
March 1st
April 1st
May 1st
June 1st
Catalyst
Pre-inter-op test
Submission
F2F 4
Acceptance
Burton decision
Detailed inter-op plan

• Burton proposal March 13th
• Spec internal committee review start March 1st
• OASIS 30 day approval cycle start April 1st
• Spec date Middle of May
• Pre inter-op glue party in Austin June

14
Project Plan
15
Project Plan
16
Core Operations

• Review

17
Core Operations

• Review
• Approve
• Thoughts on normative text

18
Request / Response

• Review

19
Request / Response

• Review
• Approve
• Thoughts on normative text

20
ExtendedRequest

• Discussion Review

21
ExtendedRequest

• Review revised schema
• Resolve ProvID issue
• Approve
• Discuss extensibility section of specification
• Normative text on use of ExtendedRequest
• Example
• Define lead for above

22
Query Schema

• Discussion Planning

23
Query Schema

• Status
• Model
• 1.0 time line and criticality for interoperability

24
Bindings

• Discussion Planning

25
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?

26
Specification
27
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 SPML1.0coreDN PSO-ID
• Pre-defined simple schema

28
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 SPML1.0coreDN
• Pre-defined merged schema

29
Specification

• Conformance
• What does conformance mean for SPML?
• Review current matrix
• Should we provide automated tests?
• WS-I profiles?

30
Next Steps

• Action items review