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.
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
_______________________________________________
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/