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/