8 Oct
2009
8 Oct
'09
2:32 p.m.
BTW, since we're not necessarily going for the *exact same* populations for the next two surveys, if we announce/market this right, we might not confuse people if we really need to run them simultaneously. But it's still probably better if we separate them in time. The more we can pre- qualify the audience(s) for survey-taking, the better. Eve On 8 Oct 2009, at 10:56 AM, Tolbert, John W wrote: > Yes, we're targeting technologists and/or technical business > analysts for this survey. > > From: dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg- > concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of John, Anil > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:48 AM > To: Shivaram Mysore > Cc: kantara Initiative > Subject: Re: [Dg-concordia] AuthZ survey changes > > Shivaram, > > Concur w/ you on the potential lack of understanding of the value of > externalized AuthZ by certain business folks. Having said that, the > impression I get is that this survey was targeted to folks who were > more on the technology side rather than the business side. > > John? > > Regards, > > - Anil > > From: dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg- > concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Shivaram Mysore > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:35 PM > To: John, Anil > Cc: kantara Initiative > Subject: Re: [Dg-concordia] AuthZ survey changes > > Anil, > > I believe you misunderstood what I said. What I really meant was > that the problem exists and business folks may not understand what > PEP and PDP means. Many may not even understand XACML or other > alphabet soup means. > > >From a problem perspective in simple language: there is significant > application integration and migration problem due to currently > deployed Policy infrastructure. > > The solution to which could be: Deploy XACML Standards based > products which will greatly reduce and possibly eliminate > application integration & migration costs. > > > /Shivaram > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John, Anil <Anil.John@jhuapl.edu> > wrote: > >"Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" > - may be too heavy a statement. > > Would respectfully disagree.. This is a clear and continuing issue, > even after the XACML TC sponsored interop that happened at Burton > Catalyst a couple of years ago. > > http://bit.ly/4NATB > http://bit.ly/6HfEn > > I wrote the above two blog entries more than a year ago. AFAIK, this > situation has not changed to any great degree (I am very willing, > and hope that I will be, corrected on this!) > > If both my PEP vendor(s) (XML Security GW Vendors as well as > Software based PEPs) as well as my PDP Vendors (Entitlement/Policy > Decisioning engines) trumpet their support for XACML and their > ability to exist in a standards based environment, why should I > continue to pay for integration between a PEP and a PDP, especially > if I’ve made a decision to externalize my AuthZ (The decision to do > so and implement is, as noted, a continuing policy and education > problem) ? > > Regards, > > - Anil > > > > > From: dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg- > concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Shivaram Mysore > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:03 PM > To: Tolbert, John W > Cc: kantara Initiative > Subject: Re: [Dg-concordia] AuthZ survey changes > > PDP and PEP acronyms will need expansion. Real life examples in > brackets would help. If the survey is for a business person, he > would not understand PDP/PEP > > "Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" - > may be too heavy a statement. > > IMHO if PEP and PDP must exist (it does not matter from which vendor > they are as the IT has to pay the cost), then the real problem is > application integration and migration. > > /Shivaram > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Tolbert, John W <john.w.tolbert@boeing.com > > wrote: > I've "simplified" the choices somewhat, and added a few items based > on the feedback. Please review at your leisure. Thanks > > http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/concordia/Authorization+survey+draft > > _______________________________________________ > Dg-concordia mailing list > Dg-concordia@kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-concordia > > > > > -- > Strong Authentication, SOA, Web Services, PKI, Software > Architecture, Product Strategy and Management Consultants: > http://www.truststix.com/ > > > > -- > Strong Authentication, SOA, Web Services, PKI, Software > Architecture, Product Strategy and Management Consultants: > http://www.truststix.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Dg-concordia mailing list > Dg-concordia@kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-concordia Eve Maler eve@xmlgrrl.com http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog