dear pascal, this is as well the thought of juanjo and the way upm is approaching the oil portal, and of course which i totally support! there was a mismatch in the communication i sent, apologises. ciao, stefano 2013/6/20 BISSON Pascal <pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com> > Dear Stefano,**** > > ** ** > > In my view this SSO mechanism you are about here should also be discussed > with Security Chapter and put back into perspective of the solutions > offered there (I’m considering here IdM GEs and Access Control GEs). As > told already it Is important for each of the Chapters (and so WP9) to > consider using what Security Chapter offer first before going to another > solution. **** > > ** ** > > Hope you can share and that we could organize such a joint discussion.**** > > ** ** > > Best Regards,**** > > Pascal**** > > ** ** > > *De :* fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto: > fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *De la part de* stefano de panfilis > *Envoyé :* mercredi 19 juin 2013 19:20 > *À :* Juanjo Hierro > *Cc :* Sandfuchs, Thorsten; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Objet :* Re: [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-wpa] R: Joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up > confcalls today are cancelled IN ORDER TO free time to provide > contributions to the form to be delivered to the EC**** > > ** ** > > dear juanjo,**** > > **** > > the wp9 team is already working with a single sign-on mechanism, actually > it is about ready and it involves also people from upm.**** > > besides it has an interface that, following the simplicity of the google > interface, can be used for the oil portal allowing access to all the > services and applications (attached a ppt).**** > > **** > > can we discuss about this and do not waste effort in parallel tasks?**** > > **** > > ciao,**** > > stefano**** > > ** ** > > 2013/6/19 Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es>**** > > On 18/06/13 14:09, Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote:**** > > Hi Juanjo,**** > > Actually the world is complex – and I only depicted this complexity and > tried to simplify or find a reasonable solution that I can understand and > talk about in front of others. But failed initially. In the end legal > relationships are quite easy, especially if you pin it down to one or more > parties interconnecting between each other and the need to have some kind > of contractual agreement between these parties.**** > > **** > > I learned now (as well from your comments) that the FI-PPP CA & GA > actually _*is*_ governing the OIL contributions by GE-software providers > towards the FI-WARE instance provider hosting the OIL, in some sense. This > simplifies already a lot, as you outlined. Furthermore the CA&GA seems to > allow the FI-WARE instance provider to enable others to host “Dedicated > SaaS” instances – The FI-WARE instance provider only should make sure that > they sign the T&U of the OIL. Responsible party of the provisioned service > still is the acting body (in one hand the GE instance provider on the other > hand the FI-WARE instance provider.)**** > > Additionally the CA&GA “commitments“ will hold for the period after M36.** > ** > > The CA & GA obviously do not complete regulate how this access will be > allowed, but outline the intension and the final result.**** > > **** > > Therefore we are on the same page.**** > > > Great !**** > > > > > **** > > **** > > I still can’t clearly see how the services requests will be (on a > technical level) governed to be allowed from parties only that signed the > OIL T&U – but I’m happy to learn here as well.**** > > ** ** > > Let me elaborate on the vision ... > > First of all, we will have to implement the concept of "user account" in > FI-WARE OIL. That is normal and I trust that potential users will > understand that they have to create user accounts in order to use FI-WARE > OIL. > > Second, we will have to implement a mechanism that will force potential > users to read and accept the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions if they want > to create a user account. > > The UPM (Juan Quemada's team, working in the Cloud chapter) will deal > will implementation of the FI-WARE OIL portal that deals with creation and > management of user accounts, so they will implement the mechanism mentioned > above. > > Last but not least, users will have to authenticate to make use of > services provided by GEi. On the other hand, client applications will be > required to obtain a valid OAuth2 token in order to issue any request to > any FI-WARE GEi. Creation of such a token will require the > authentication of users on behalf of which client applications will issue > requests, otherwise the token will not be recognized as valid. This > should prevent requests from non-valid users.**** > > > > > **** > > **** > > I updated the table down below – so some cells are now filled. Others are > still open: who acts as the FI-WARE instance provider in case of OIL? The > Cloud blueprint Manager, TID, Red.IS or a given set of these parties?**** > > ** ** > > I'm not sure I understand the table ... I would need that you clarify > what will be the exact meaning of each cell ... I prefer to wait for that > explanation before giving my take on possible values ...**** > > > > **** > > **** > > In any case I’m happy for these insights. They will allow me and hopefully > others to clarify this as well towards our GE contributors within the WPs. > As similar questions might arise, once this fully hits the consortium.**** > > ** ** > > I agree that all this exercise is useful. Thanks for raising your > concerns because many people may have similar ones. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo**** > > > > > **** > > **** > > Best,**** > > /Thorsten* > *** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es <jhierro at tid.es>] > *Sent:* Dienstag, 18. Juni 2013 10:36 > *To:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Cc:* Garino Pierangelo; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-wpa] R: [Fiware-wpl] Joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up > confcalls today are cancelled IN ORDER TO free time to provide > contributions to the form to be delivered to the EC**** > > **** > > On 18/06/13 10:04, Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote:**** > > Thanks for the comments, I compiled a list of open questions/matrix and > drew a picture to outline at least what I so far understood – see > attachment for high-res and the graphml-version of the thing.**** > > **** > > Can we perhaps jointly fill the missing cells and clarify open questions?* > *** > > **** > > Especially as we seem to not have a legal framework for the OIL, my > current assumption would be **** > > 1. That every “using company” (Target audience) needs to sign a > respective “Terms of Use” bilaterally with all the GE instance providers in > order to request allowance to a single GE instance. The GE-instance > provider takes full responsibility for his own GE instance.**** > > > Why should we make things so complicated ? IMHO, a suggestion like > this will directly lead us to failure. If any target user finally find > things so complicated to use in FI-WARE OIL, they will refuse using the > FI-WARE OIL. > > This is similarly to the single sign-on. Users do not accept well > portals that do not implement a single sign-on. Terms and conditions > should be common and would need to be signed to create a user account in > the FI-WARE OIL. Then, everything that has been made available to FI-WARE > OIL users will be subject to the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions. > > **** > > 2. For providing and redistributing software outside of the PPP, > the PPP-CA does not hold any more, therefore all GE-*software* providers > (FI-WARE partners) need to sign something with the “*FI-WARE Instance*Provider” to allow the latter to redistribute their software within the OIL > scope**** > > > You seem to forget that launching the FI-WARE OIL was part of the DoW, > therefore the Grant Agreement you have signed. Did you sign anything with > someone to run the FI-WARE Tesbed provided to UC projects ? Yes, a > contract with the EC where it was stated that you had to do so :-) I > don't believe that nothing else has to be signed. You are not providing > software of your GE to anyone else to install it in the FI-WARE OIL on your > behalf and then make it accessible to third parties. Same as it happened > with the FI-WARE Testbed, FI-WARE GEi owners will have to deploy their GEis > in the FI-WARE OIL Cloud and make them accessible to third parties (through > the Service End Point they will advertise through the FI-WARE Catalogue) or > setup blueprint templates that will allow third parties to deploy dedicated > FI-WARE GEi instances on their own. > > The exercise is pretty simple: do you want to comply with the Grant > Agreement you have signed and make your GEi accessible in OIL ? You can a) > go there and deploy your GEi, advertise the Service End Point through the > FI-WARE Catalogue (where it will be clearly stated that it is provided > through the OIL so use terms and conditions apply) and/or b) go there and > configure a blueprint template that can be used in combination with Cloud > blueprint management tools allowing third parties to create and deploy in > OIL their own dedicated instances: an action that can only be made by > registered users of the OIL (i.e., users who have created an account) who > have had to adhere to the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions. > **** > > 3. If a 3rd party wants to act as GE-Instance provider (Dedicated > SaaS), he needs to sign **** > > a. Something with the FI-WARE Instance Provider (in order to allow > him to host software)**** > > b. Something with the GE-software provider (in order to get > allowance for redistribution of the GE software) – if this allowance is not > given explicitly already with “2.” **** > > **** > > ð My assumption: The OIL “Terms of Use” currently in preparation would > only cover Point 3 and not point 1 and 2.**** > > **** > > What do you think – did I miss something?**** > > > You are making things unnecessarily complicated. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo**** > > **** > > ð For all the relevant contracting it might be good to establish a set > of blueprints to ease up use and consumption of this construct. I doubt > that all of this can be handled by a single “Terms of Use” for the OIL, as > currently prepared. But please correct me if I’m wrong. **** > > **** > > The architecture depicts the instances provided by different entities from > left to right in order of “more public” use – e.g. left is the Testbed and > right are the various commercial clouds for 2014++**** > > **** > > **** > > In the Platform part itself I tried to make the various involved roles > explicit with an example of UPM – on the left side UPM is proving the > software “Application Mashup” (bottom right “*<UPM>*”) and the instance. > While on the right side it is depicted how e.g. ENVIROFI would host a > dedicated SaaS instance of the UPM GE.**** > > **** > > **** > > As said – I tried to gather these dimensions in the following table (as > well as part of the attached pptx). Dimensions and related names are not > fixed, just a first shot to get hold of the complexity.**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *Dimension***** > > *Testbed > M27 (v2.3)***** > > *XIFI > M30 (v3)***** > > *OIL > M29-M36***** > > *OIL > M36+***** > > *Com. > 2014+***** > > *FI-WARE Instance Provider***** > > TID (?)**** > > Individual**** > > *FI-WARE Hosting Provider***** > > Red.IS**** > > Individual**** > > *GE Instance Provider***** > > FI-WARE Partners (FP)**** > > FI-WARE Partners (FP)**** > > FI-WARE Partners (FP) & 3rd party**** > > FI-WARE Partners (FP) & 3rd party**** > > Individual**** > > *Legal Framework***** > > PPP-CA**** > > PPP-CA**** > > PPP-CA**** > > PPP-CA**** > > *Terms of use***** > > PPP-CA**** > > PPP-CA**** > > OIL-T&U**** > > OIL-T&U**** > > *Scope***** > > Non-productive > research&exp.**** > > Non-productive > research&exp.**** > > Non-productive > research&exp.**** > > *Support/SLA from instance provider***** > > *Support/SLA from GE provider***** > > Best effort**** > > Bilateral with XiFi**** > > Best effort**** > > Best effort**** > > Bilateral**** > > *Target audience***** > > UC Phase 1**** > > UC Phase 2**** > > FI-PPP externals**** > > FI-PPP externals**** > > FI-PPP externals**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es <jhierro at tid.es>] > *Sent:* Montag, 17. Juni 2013 15:04 > *To:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Cc:* Garino Pierangelo; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-wpa] R: [Fiware-wpl] Joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up > confcalls today are cancelled IN ORDER TO free time to provide > contributions to the form to be delivered to the EC**** > > **** > > Dear Thorsten, > > The description of the Use Cases that are listed on the wiki looked a > bit weird but I actually asked our TID legal deparment to prepare a first > draft of the terms and conditions that would apply to the FI-WARE OIL under > the assumption that we will actually support UC1 to UC3, of course, this > meaning that the proper clauses for each would have to be incorporated. > My interpretation of these UCs are as follows:**** > > - UC1: Third parties will be able to use the FI-WARE OIL to > play/experiment with FI-WARE GEis deployed on the FI-WARE OIL **** > - UC2: Third parties will be able to use the FI-WARE OIL to test > experimental applications developed based on FI-WARE GEis deployed on the > FI-WARE OIL and they will be able to deploy those experimental applications > on the FI-WARE OIL **** > - UC3: Experimental applications deployed on the FI-WARE OIL will be > made accessible to potential testing users or users participating in > demos/showcases **** > > > Note that we would support the three of them which are actually > compatible. > > I don't understand very well what we refer as UC4 and, in any case, > there were no clauses proposed to cover them which had helped to understand > the scope for that UC. We understood it was a special case of UC3, where > the experimental application can be considered itself a GE (or > domain-specific common enabler). However, this wouldn't mean any > difference with respect to terms and conditions to be defined. > > Given said the above, the following main ingredients/principles have > been considered for development of the first draft of terms and conditions > (of course, more elaborated legal wording will come in the draft but I > guess you can find this summary more comprehensive ;-):**** > > - FI-WARE GEis available on FI-WARE OIL can only be used for > experimental purposes. Subscribers to terms and conditions of the FI-WARE > OIL can only develop experimental applications based on FI-WARE GEis > available through the FI-WARE OIL. This means that such applications > cannot be providing any kind of service to third parties. **** > - FI-WARE GEis available through the FI-WARE OIL will be provided "as > is" so no responsibility will be assumed (liability) **** > - FI-WARE GEi owners will provide "best-effort" support to usage of > FI-WARE GEis made available through the FI-WARE OIL. **** > - The specific models for which support of a given FI-WARE GEi will be > provided in the FI-WARE OIL (even if we are talking about "best-effort" > support) will be described in the corresponding entry in the FI-WARE > Catalogue. Note: If you ask me, I would highly recommend FI-WARE GEi > owners to limit the models for which support is going to be provided to any > of the following ones (binaries or source code may also be made available > for download and local deployment but I would then recommend to carefully > give a though to what kind of "best-effort" support you can provide): * > *** > > > - Global SaaS instances, i.e., instances of the FI-WARE GEi that has > been deployed on the FI-WARE OIL by the GEi owner, offering its functions > "as a Service" through well-defined APIs served at defined Service End > Points **** > - Dedicated SaaS instances, i.e., meaning that it can be > instantiated in the FI-WARE Cloud and provided "as a Service" using FI-WARE > Cloud tools **** > > > - FI-WARE partners will not be responsible from malicious requests or > malitious applications running on OIL **** > - We will not be responsible for right usage of data in the FI-WARE > OIL. It is assumed that FI-WARE OIL users will comply with any applicable > laws regarding data they are using **** > - We have rights to take any statistical data that help to improve > operations of the FI-WARE OIL or may help to advertise OIL (in this latter > case, being able to publish what GEis are being used, etc) **** > - We can interrupt or get rid of any applications running on OIL > unilaterally without prior notice if we detect any malitious behaviour or > this is required for the right performance of OIL, comply with existing > laws, etc **** > - We can in general break the contract with users with prior notice of > max 15 days even in the case of proper usage **** > - Any application that is based on FI-WARE GEis deployed on OIL should > shown "powered by FI-WARE" **** > - Resources offered to FI-WARE users will in any case be limited and > subject to quotas, expiration times, etc **** > > > As you see, most of these ingredients had been listed on the wiki. > > I hope that we will be able to share soon this first draft of the > FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions so that legal departments can agree on the > concrete wording that will support the above ingredients. > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo**** > > -------------**** > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital**** > > website: www.tid.es**** > > email: jhierro at tid.es**** > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro**** > > **** > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator **** > > and Chief Architect**** > > **** > > You can follow FI-WARE at:**** > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu**** > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242**** > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware**** > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932**** > > On 17/06/13 10:50, Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote:**** > > Hi Juanjo,**** > > Concerning the messaging around the OIL the well-known picture down below > comes to my mind.**** > > **** > > I think it is hard to have a messaging towards the outside, as long as we > don’t have a clear internal view on the “thing”. Therefore it is vital that > you share more of the plan going forward and onboard us – e.g. in a session > as proposed by Andrea on the topic. Currently I was quite “astonished” > about the level of depth and engagement plan you layed out in front of the > reviewers.**** > > **** > > Let me remind everybody on the 4 basic use cases we gathered in Rome – > documented here: > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/FI-WARE_Open_Innovation_Lab_Terms_and_Condition_Ingredients > **** > > For me many of the open questions are still “open” and pending some > pragmatic decisions.**** > > **** > > Especially for the “Archievements” document we need to have crystal clear > statements what it _*is*_ and what it’s _*not*_ - otherwise nobody can > possibly use the thing…**** > > **** > > Best,**** > > /Thorsten* > *** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu>] > On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro > Sent: Montag, 17. Juni 2013 09:22 > To: Garino Pierangelo > Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpa] R: [Fiware-wpl] Joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up > confcalls today are cancelled IN ORDER TO free time to provide > contributions to the form to be delivered to the EC**** > > **** > > **** > > I assume that you had booked the timeslots from 11:00 to 12:30 and**** > > from 14:30 to 16:00 to the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall.**** > > **** > > Therefore, If I'm freeing those slots they become free time for you**** > > but you must devote that time to review and contribute to the form, not*** > * > > to carry out any other task.**** > > **** > > I'm pretty sure that you may provide some more info that the one**** > > currently provided to the part B, C and D sections. You just have to**** > > think about what you will write if you were assigned the task to write**** > > down the answer to those sections. You haven't contributed any input**** > > to part C nor D.**** > > **** > > BTW, there is already content for section D you may be willing to > revise.**** > > **** > > Cheers,**** > > **** > > -- Juanjo**** > > **** > > -------------**** > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital**** > > website: www.tid.es**** > > email: jhierro at tid.es**** > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro**** > > **** > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator**** > > and Chief Architect**** > > **** > > You can follow FI-WARE at:**** > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu**** > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242**** > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware**** > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932**** > > **** > > On 17/06/13 08:42, Garino Pierangelo wrote:**** > > > Hi Juanjo,**** > > > **** > > > my comments to Part B of the form have been added yesterday.**** > > > One further comment: if you plan to have a call before submitting the > form, it would be better to know in advance to avoid issues in attending.* > *** > > > **** > > > BR**** > > > Pier**** > > > **** > > > **** > > > -----Messaggio originale-----**** > > > Da: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu>] > Per conto di Juanjo Hierro**** > > > Inviato: lunedì 17 giugno 2013 08:07**** > > > A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu**** > > > Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls today are > cancelled IN ORDER TO free time to provide contributions to the form to be > delivered to the EC**** > > > **** > > > Hi,**** > > > **** > > > We will cancel the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls scheduled for > today.**** > > > **** > > > This will help that you free at least 3 hours to provide**** > > > input/comments to the form to be delivered to the EC. Therefore you** > ** > > > don't have any excuse :-)**** > > > **** > > > Best regards,**** > > > **** > > > -- Juanjo**** > > > **** > > > -------------**** > > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital**** > > > website: www.tid.es**** > > > email: jhierro at tid.es**** > > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro**** > > > **** > > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief > Architect**** > > > **** > > > You can follow FI-WARE at:**** > > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu**** > > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242**** > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware**** > > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932**** > > > **** > > > **** > > > ________________________________**** > > > **** > > > 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**** > > > _______________________________________________**** > > > Fiware-wpl mailing list**** > > > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu**** > > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl**** > > > **** > > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua > distruzione, Grazie.**** > > > **** > > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, > copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not > the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.**** > > > **** > > > .**** > > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ________________________________**** > > **** > > 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**** > > _______________________________________________**** > > Fiware-wpa mailing list**** > > Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu**** > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > > 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**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > > 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**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > > 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**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl**** > > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567**** > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130620/a0c6272f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8622 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130620/a0c6272f/attachment.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18322 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130620/a0c6272f/attachment-0001.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16997 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130620/a0c6272f/attachment-0002.jpg>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy