Thanks Manuel for this clarification. As as usual it can only further helps us. Regards, Pascal De : MANUEL ESCRICHE VICENTE [mailto:mev at tid.es] Envoyé : mercredi 2 octobre 2013 12:10 À : BISSON Pascal; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com'; GIDOIN Daniel Objet : RE: [Fiware-idm-ge] Input needed on supported protocols Thanks Pascal! Yes, I confirm it - it's being used on the Data Chapter, it's been started now on IoT as well, and I have it ready for Security. I miss the mapping, right now I have GE: Identity Management, GEI: IDM-One IDM => Missing mapping GE: Identity Management, GEI: IDM-DigitalSelf => Missing mapping GE: Identity Management, GEI: IDM-GCP => Missing mapping The 'missing mapping' is the keyword for your items in the backlog. For example, lets imagine FIWARE.Epic.IDM.CustomerLoginOpenId belonged to IDM-DigitalSelf and their keyword were IDM-DigitalSelf, then the item would appear as: FIWARE.Epic.IDM-DigitalSelf.CustomerLoginOpenId, and IDM-Digital Self will have its own tab So please, as soon as you have the mappings, let me know so that I can generate the report with the best shape for you to manage. Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Manuel From: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Sent: miércoles, 02 de octubre de 2013 10:06 To: Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu> Cc: Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com'; MANUEL ESCRICHE VICENTE; GIDOIN Daniel; BISSON Pascal Subject: RE: [Fiware-idm-ge] Input needed on supported protocols Importance: High Dear Robert, Thanks for your email and update regarding update of the wiki page with additional input provided. Regarding your last point my view on this is that since we are targeting IdM GE Open Specifications shared/agreed between the various providers (NSN, DT, and UPM) there is indeed no need to keep the names as Juanjo did request as you reminded. But for GE Implementations (GEi) names are important to differentiate the various Gei implementations we now have (One-IdM, DigitalSelf, GCP and the GEi implementation of UPM for which I'm missing so far the name: @UPM please name your GE). With this respect and to help to make this difference on the Tracker where there are items for the implementations of the various IdM GEis let me inform you that you can now rely also on the GE implementation (circle in red below) to differentiate the tickets And Yes after discussion with Manuel (in cc) I confirm this is something already use in other Chapters to differentiate various GE implementations. So since appropriate in our case let us use it as well. Of course once more for UPM we need the Ge implementation name. Hope it helps. Regards, PS: I put Manuel in cc in case he'd like to add to the above. [cid:image001.png at 01CEBF6A.5C490150] De : fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich) Envoyé : mardi 1 octobre 2013 19:10 À : fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu> Cc : Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com' Objet : Re: [Fiware-idm-ge] Input needed on supported protocols Hi all, I provided the input to the wiki page. Please find the consolidated version under the following link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.ArchitectureDescription.Identity_Management_Generic_Enabler Please have a look specially at chapter 6, if I was transferring your input in the right way. @all: If someone has an idea how to limit the length of the tables, please tell me. I was not able to put them in a better shape due to missing wiki commands. So if someone is more experienced here, please feel free to step in. @Pascal: As agreed I kept the description of the standard example code (e.g. for SAML, OAuth, ..). I can replace it via a link if needed. @all: I separated the interface description in chapter 6 by the company names. I remember that Juanjo requested to remove the names. Did someone has an idea how to distinguish the enabler here? Maybe by GE names? Any opinion here? Greetings Robert From: ext Antonio Tapiador del Dujo [mailto:atapiador at dit.upm.es] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:19 PM To: Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: ext DANGERVILLE Cyril; fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu>; Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com' Subject: Re: [Fiware-idm-ge] Input needed on supported protocols Please, find attached a new version that gathers the clarifications regarding SCIM tenants in the UPM GE El 25/09/13 16:18, Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich) escribió: Hi all, Please find a consolidated version attached. Please check if everything is correct. We still have to include the comments provided by Cyril (we will come back to you). Many thanks Robert From: ext DANGERVILLE Cyril [mailto:cyril.dangerville at thalesgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:52 PM To: Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu> Cc: Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com<mailto:istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com>' Subject: RE: Input needed on supported protocols Hello, Sorry I was not at the conf call, but I just have 3 comments from the point of view of the Access Control GE integration: 1) It would help to have SCIM features marked "OPTIONAL" as specific rows in the SCIM REST API table, the same way you did for "Bulk": 3.2.2.2<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-scim-api-02#section-3.2.2.2>. Filtering 3.2.2.3<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-scim-api-02#section-3.2.2.3>. Sorting (and also 3.3.2<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-scim-api-02#section-3.3.2>. Modifying with PATCH, but less important to the AC GE) 4<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-scim-api-02#section-4>. Multi-Tenancy 2) For multi-tenancy in NSN, it is said: "Tenant ID may be specified in HTTP header according to 4.1.3." Is it not possible to use 4.1.1 URL prefix as well, like for the oauth Token Info request ? (See DigitalSelf-AC_GE.doc that Gabor sent me). 3) I am missing a feature like "OAuth Token Info/Validation API" (the equivalent of the Token Info mentioned in the previous point). This is quite important to the Access Control GE to be able to validate/get info about an OAuth access token, as you know. The issue is that it is not part of the standards as far as I know (?), so I let you decide where it would fit. Just for clarification. Thanks. Regards, Cyril De : fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-idm-ge-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich) Envoyé : mardi 24 septembre 2013 17:08 À : fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu> Cc : Gesztesi, Gabor (EXT-Other - HU/Budapest); Meyer, Gerald (NSN - DE/Munich); 'istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com<mailto:istvan.zolyomi at gmail.com>' Objet : [Fiware-idm-ge] Input needed on supported protocols Hi together, as discussed in our telco yesterday we agreed to provide a detailed overview on the supported standards. Please find attached an overview for the supported protocols in the case of NSN. We would need such kind as well for DT and UPM IDM GE. You could use the attached document as template. I already provided a placeholder in the document. Please add the relevant information from your side until end of Thursday this week. Many thanks in advance! Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Seidl Robert Nokia Solutions and Networks Management International GmbH CTO R SWS SDT St.-Martin-Strasse 76 81541 Muenchen phone +49 (0)89 5159 21106 mobile +49 (0)172 3652971 email robert.seidl at nsn.com<mailto:emailrobert.seidl at nsn.com> Nokia Solutions and Networks Management International GmbH Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Stephanie Werner Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 _______________________________________________ Fiware-idm-ge mailing list Fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-idm-ge at lists.fi-ware.eu> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-idm-ge ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-idm-ge/attachments/20131002/e0483cc3/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 46429 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-idm-ge/attachments/20131002/e0483cc3/attachment.png>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy