[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState
Gary,
State can be as complicated as necessary but I'm not sure that the WS-Provisioning state-related methods and enumerations are too far away from what you are talking about. The submission included five defined states (created, suspended, active, locked, terminated) that were not intended to be exhaustive, so it was left open to allow users to create their own. A set containing "exists", "disabled" and "expired" could easily be included in an enumeration. I guess I'm not sure why each would need to be a separate attribute but that's a minor detail. On setting or retrieving the times for each of these transitions, the WS-Provisioning approach was to treat these as read-only essentially, so the "lifecycle" portion of the spec dealt with that. I can definitely see the value for a client in being able to set the expiration date/time for an account for example so I think it would be useful to explore that some more.
I'm worried in general about any attempt to come up with a definitive schema for accounts. What we are talking about here is really "control" information that is useful to the provisioning system but in many cases has little to do with the target resource itself. My perspective is that we should isolate and model this control information and leave the account schema to the resources. I agree that we should be able to schedule account state changes but that will generally be performed outside the resource and not by the resource itself. I'm similarly concerned about any attempt to define a user schema since the representations of users are as varied as those for accounts.
If I could suggest in the light of this and the other discussions on the list today that we consider the relationships involved in the provisioning space as the interesting parts of the model, and leave the entities to those who would define their own. This might allow the spec to be cleaner and more widely applicable, and decouple the SPML from the schemas for users and accounts that others are working on. This might also serve to focus the spec on the real meat of the provisioning task which, in my mind, is more concerned with establishing relationships than defining the resources involved. I'm thinking along the lines of a set of well-defined relationships that we might publish as part of the standard, such as, for example:
Owner - Account/resource owners
Alias - Might allow multiple identities/entities to be associated as the same identity
Member - For groups, roles etc.
Or at a lower level even:
Dependency - Inter-target dependencies for example
I know the WS-Managability and WSDM people have always been fond of relationships. Maybe we could align ourselves with what they end up adopting and improve compatibility. Alternatively it would not be difficult to define our own simple model until some other standard emerged for these kinds of loosely coupled relationships. I would propose a separate interface definition that PSPs might implement to allow relationships to be retrieved and possibly defined. PSPs conforming with the relationship interface would be required to support the PSTC-defined relationship types. Actually, there might be a set of relationships that would be critical and required and perhaps a set that would not be required but you get my drift. This would be an optional interface that would overlay on top of the "core" PSP interface.
Gerry
"Gary Cole" <Gary.Cole@waveset.com>
03/24/2004 09:38 AM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: [provision] PSO/Account/ProvisionedState |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]