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
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/concordia/Authorization+surv...
_______________________________________________ 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/