OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE

  • 1.  Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE

    Posted 08-06-2004 20:47
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] Fwd: CAP Implimentation inCompassLDE


    Rex et al :
    
    Great ...
    
    If you wish to progress this further -
    I believe the next (protocol) step would be for this TC and the
    ebXMLRegistry TC to review a discussion document that would be jointly
    presented at the next meeting of the e-Government TC (phew !!).
    
    have a nice weekend
    carl
    
    <quote who="Rex Brooks">
    > Thanks Carl,
    >
    > I'm also a member of the eGov TC and I have a great interest in this
    > pilot project because it has the potential to add that
    > "international" component to the range I spoke of in my message. This
    > week, I learned in the course of Farrukh Najmi's brief presentation
    > on ebXML Registry Note for WSRP Thursday, that XACML is implementable
    > via ebXML Registry. That makes the issue of developing "trust
    > networks" with role-based access provisions via that mechanism
    > possible in an interoperable way now. That answered a particular
    > question I had as I explored WSS and WS-I Basic Security Profile,
    > since it seems very likely that role-based access is one requirement
    > I think the EM community will have in addition to propagating userid,
    > establishing secure channels, non-repudiation, encrypting message
    > payloads, etc...
    >
    > Ciao,
    > Rex
    >
    > Thanks, and I will look into liaising with you on this, if you're
    > interested.
    >
    > At 9:31 AM -0400 8/6/04, Carl Mattocks wrote:
    >>Rex et al :
    >>It may be possible to address these requirements as an extension of the
    >>joint E-Government / ebXMLRegistry Tc effort that aims to publish best
    >>practices around collaborative development of content.
    >>
    >>finest regards
    >>Carl Mattocks
    >>
    >><quote who="Rex Brooks">
    >>>  Thanks, Allen,
    >>>
    >>>  It looks like the time has come to address this overall issue. I
    >>>  uploaded a general presentation on WSS, borrowed from the WSRP TC
    >>>  which is one of several areas of concern that all intersect in this
    >>>  specific issue of establishing trust networks. In this case the area
    >>>  is web services. In line with the various transport-specific
    >>>  requirements, we might want to consider gathering requirements for an
    >>>  EM-specific registry, especially in the context of developing the
    >>>  message-wrapper for setting context(s). A great deal of work has
    >>>  already been done in ebXML and UDDI, so we are far from starting from
    >>>  a zero point.
    >>>
    >>>  I was going to upload the presentations and discussions we have been
    >>>  having this week for related issues in security in the WSRP meetings,
    >>>  but they have gotten too specific to be valuable in a more general
    >>>  context, let alone in narrowing back down to a CAP-specific
    >>>  discussion, and we still have one more today. However, it has been
    >>>  instructive.
    >>>
    >>>  An EM Registry need not be web-only, but could have sections per
    >>>  transport mechanism with recommendations for how to organize it to
    >>>  list a registrant's organizational capabilities, memberships,
    >>>  protocols/standards supported, etc. While that approach might entail
    >>>  multiple or repeated entries where an organization spans transports,
    >>>  it could be organized in such a way as to make establishing trust
    >>>  relationships reliable without having too great an overhead cost.
    >>>
    >>>  Regardless, such a registry would need to have the support and
    >>>  cooperation of the governmental jurisdictional authorities from the
    >>>  local to the international levels, but the movement toward
    >>>  cooperation in these areas appears to be favorable, for now at least.
    >>>
    >>>  Ciao,
    >>>  Rex
    >>>
    >>>  At 6:52 AM -0400 8/6/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
    >>>>Note that I moved this discussion over to the TC thread and took it
    >>>>off the Public Comment list.
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, please notice that what JD is asking is not "what's possible",
    >>>>but rather "what's official".
    >>>>
    >>>>On Aug 5, 2004, at 8:08 PM, David Aylward wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Claude:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Yes, but not yet in the best way, integrating the data flow into and
    >>>>> out
    >>>>>of the CAD system.  Obviously that requires an interface with the CAD
    >>>>>system, which we are looking forward to doing soon.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>David Aylward
    >>>>>Director
    >>>>>The ComCARE Alliance
    >>>>>888 17th St., N.W.
    >>>>>Washington, DC 20006
    >>>>>202-429-0574 Extension 247
    >>>>>202-296-2962 (fax)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>