John,
I would keep the current title.
"Requirements" shouldn't automatically invoke the idea that they must be technical (even if, sadly, they all too often do).
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
+1 310 694 2278 (USA)
Twitter @PensivePeter
Sent from my phone - Apologies for brevity and typos: it's hard writing on a moving planet
From:
John Borras
Sent:
25-Jun-12 2:01
To:
Subject:
RE: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER
Colin
I really like your "tag-line" of producing an implementation/assurance
profile. This really nails it for me and provides total clarity of what it
is this TC is about. I've amended the draft Charter to reflect this.
Only question in my mind is do we need to change the title of the TC to
include the words "non-technical requirements" as we're not going to produce
the technical spec bits of an assurance profile. It would make the TC title
rather a mouthful - OASIS Public Administration Cloud Non-Technical
Requirements Technical Committee (abbreviated as OASIS Public Cloud TC or
PACNTR TC).
John
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Colin
Wallis
Sent: 22 June 2012 01:59
To:
Subject: RE: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER
@Tony: Noting and agree with Tony's point about the additional (seemingly
limitless) works in play right now ..
@John: While I don't disagree with the fundamental thrust of the draft, I
think it could do a slightly better job of contextualising what it is trying
to achieve.
My thought was that if 'cloud' was a spec of IT bits 'n pieces collected
together to offer something (like SAML in spec of XML to offer
authentication), then what we are proposing here is an
implementation/conformance profile for government i.e. what features do
governments want to see in cloud offerings to government. Once you have
these, you can set up conformance programs to check to see if the features
in cloud vendor x or y are indeed present.
Taking the SAML analogy one step further, armed with the conformance
profile, governments then might agree on how those features (or a sub set
that can be commonly agreed upon) are configured, in what is usually
understood as a deployment profile. This is where the 'levels' come in - the
configuration of the features will vary depending on the level.
If the SAML conformance and deployment profile notions were well enough
understood, then applying that approach here might help further decompose
what seems to be an amorphous list of stuff..
Linking back to Neil's reference to goings-on in Kantara, it's worth noting
that Kantara does conformance testing and certification for SAML and will do
for OpenID Connect when the spec is stable. And in the non technical spec
area, it does assurance approval of identity IdPs and CSPs. So in essence,
Kantara's work groups outputs are inputs to the assurance and certification
programs. So to Neil's point, the outputs from the proposed Kantara
CloudIDsec wg would inform the work in this group, and visa versa.
Cheers
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Neil
McEvoy
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 7:52 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] PROPOSED TC CHARTER
Thanks John.
Here is an article I have just posted that clarifies the main ideas behind
the Kantara CloudIDsec wg I have proposed for inclusion:
http://cloudbestpractices.net/2012/06/21/ccommerce/
The main idea being the role of Kantara as approved Trust Framework provider
can enable Cloud hosters to be regulated in a form relevant to GovClouds,
meeting the requirements of various relevant Whitehouse & other programs.
Cheers Neil.
> Thanks to all for the messages of support so far and for the
> constructive suggestions. We will of course need many more supporters
> if we are to get the TC up and running but let's try and consolidate
> what we have so far into
> a possible Charter for the new TC. Attached is a draft and please feel
> free to edit it as you see fit. It's important that we get this right
> as it will be used to drive the work of the TC, so for instance have
> we got the right set of Deliverables or are the other things we should
> try and produce?
>
>
>
>
> Assuming that we can make good progress on this over the next few
> weeks then the plan would be to launch the new TC adjacent to the next
> International Cloud Symposium (ICS 2012) which will be held in
> Washington DC on 10th - 12th October. It was of course the ICS 2011
> event that was the origin of this new TC so having the first meeting
> at ICS 2012 would be a very good piece of publicity and hopefully
> would attract several new members.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
--
Neil McEvoy
Founder and President
Level 5 Consulting Group
http://L5consulting.net
