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
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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>