From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Aug 1 09:46:45 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:46:45 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] TR: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: Coordination of FI-WARE backlog related activities Message-ID: <3557_1312184810_4E3659EA_3557_1857_1_dbaab28e-65f7-49c5-a6b1-00d58d5e8bf4@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> FYI and as reported to you at our last audio conference on Friday. Complementary to this will send you also a second email from Juanjo detailing step 3. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : jeudi 28 juillet 2011 03:25 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: Coordination of FI-WARE backlog related activities Hi all, Once we have dealt with the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision) we have to start working in three major tasks on which we should concentrate our efforts until our plenary meeting in Turin: 1. Launch of activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog 2. Management of relationship with FI-PPP UC projects 3. Launch of activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website (setup of the public Wiki and start of activities in blogs) This email elaborates on the first two points. We will review this in the confcall we have scheduled for July 28, 11:30am Cheers, -- Juanjo 1. Launch of activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog At this point, I assume that you already understand the basis of how we plan to use Agile in our project. It summary, we will use it for managing the FI-WARE requirements, which will take the form of entries in what we refer as the FI-WARE backlog. In any case, please review the presentation I made during our kick-off meeting in May: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/37/FI-WARE+agile+Intro+vfinal.pptx Following is the list of steps and considerations to take into account when launching the activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog: * The first step we have to deal with has to do with closing the decision on the assets we will adopt as baseline for the reference implementation of each of the GEs. For this, every WP will have to come with a first proposal by August 31st on what asset, from what project+partner, will be adopted as baseline for the reference implementation of each of the GEs in the corresponding chapter. The different WP/chapter teams have to start this exercise now. It may not be feasible to close the mapping of assets for each of the GEs identified in a given chapter. This may be particularly the case for assets related to GEs for which there are still may points under discussion. It may also happen that we have identified assets for some of the components of a GE but not all. But at least we should have a relatively mature list of assets identified for the main GEs in each chapter by August 31st. This represents a first action point on WPLs and WPAs. * Then we have to start to populate the FI-WARE backlog as soon as the asset(s) for a given GE have been identified. * The fields for entries in the FI-PPP backlog (which includes the Fi-WARE backlog) have already been defined and correspond to the ones described in the attached template (spreadsheet). Note that entries in the FI-PPP backlog will not comprise just features/user-stories linked to FI-WARE GEs but to other platform enablers which may happen to be common to several applications while still domain-specific. If you have any question/doubt regarding semantics of any field in the template, please let Thomas or me know. * Regarding tools to create, maintain and manage requests on entries of the FI-PPP backlog, the following has been agreed: * The FI-PPP will use Agilefant in order to perform the overall management of entries in backlogs. The FI-PPP will go for a configuration where we will define multiple backlogs in Agilefant. One per GE in each chapter, one covering entries for all the still uncategorized platform enablers, one (at least) for other platform enablers that are common but domain-specific (therefore out of the scope of FI-WARE) and one per each of the UC projects that wish to use Agilefant to manage their own application backlog. This with the ability to transfer entries from one backlog to another. * However, Agilefant is pretty simple, and entries of a backlog in Agilefant cannot be flexibly configured as to contain all of the fields we have defined for the FI-PPP backlog template (attached). Therefore, the description field of each entry in an Agilefant backlog will have to include an URL link to a page on a Wiki (based on Wikimedia) where all fields for that entry, as defined in the attached spreadsheet, can be fully specified. Regarding entries linked to the FI-WARE backlogs, and probably also for entries linked to platform enablers in general, this wiki will be provided by FI-WARE. Thomas or me will provide concrete instructions on how to create backlog entries in the Wiki and in Agilefant before Thursday next week. In the meantime, you may wish to start working on entries, just using spreadsheets following the attached template. * FI-WARE will put in place some system to manage the lifecycle of requests to create new entries in the FI-WARE backlogs or modify existing ones by third parties. This tool should not be offered just to UC projects but to the general public, because we have to be open to other communities. Most probably this tool will be the tracker system in FusionForge but we are still analyzing whether it could be managed directly through Agilefant, defining an intermediate backlog about "request for platform enablers" where request for entries formulated by UC projects would be created and only transferred to the FI-WARE backlogs when agreed with FI-WARE. However, the issue of dealing with other third parties/communities may lead to the need to put a more formal system such as tracker. We will inform before Thursday next week about what tool has been decided and what will be the procedures to follow. * One point that was already understood and agreed during the FI-PPP AB is that requirements from end-users on applications to be developed by UC projects are different from requirements on FI-WARE (on platform enablers in general). During investigation of a end-user requirement "X" (no matter if it is a Theme, an EPIC or an user-story), a given UC project may conclude that it needs to rely on a platform that support a number of features "a", "b", and "c" plus develop an application implementing functionalities "M", "N", "O" on top of that platform. These "a", "b" and "c" features should translate into entries initially linked to the "platform enablers" backlog. Some of them will finally be addressed in FI-WARE so therefore will be transferred to the FI-WARE backlog. Whether we will manage this transference directly on Agilefant or through a tracker system, is something to decide. Nevertheless, note that specification of "X", "M", "N", "O" will not be part of the FI-WARE backlog. The level of concreteness is also different: "X" and even "M", "N" and "O" may be very concrete, with a quite detailed specification. However, "a", "b" and "c", at the time they are formulated by a UC project, may be just in the form of a "theme" or "epic", according to Agile terminology. * At a given point in time, features "a", "b" and "c" will be submitted to FI-WARE for consideration. FI-WARE will then determine whether the feature is considered inside the scope of FI-WARE and what priority is finally assigned. This decision will most probably imply several interactions with the UC projects that have identified the features. As mentioned before, we will come in the coming days with a concrete proposal on tools and procedures adopted for managing this process. * During this process, UC projects may additionally require further clarifications about what we intend to deliver in a given chapter, for a given GE. In other words, they may ask for clarifications on parts of the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision). This should be driven in a formal manner, to avoid getting into chaos. Therefore, a specific tracker system associated to the Product Vision will be put in place for UC projects (and the general public) to formulate their questions. Explanations given to resolve tickets should lead to creation/update of contents in a FAQ Wiki we should start creating. * Parallel to UC projects running the process described above, FI-WARE should, own its own, work in defining entries for the FI-WARE backlogs. Whether they will be still generic ("themes" or "epics") or already detailed as to be ready for implementation will depend on how clear we have things regarding the GEs in each of the chapters. There are three different types of entries that FI-WARE chapter teams should be able to generate from now until the Turing meeting (as a first milestone) * Entries related to new functional or non-functional features we need to implement in an asset adopted as baseline for the development of the reference implementation of a given GE (or part of it), in order to cover the gap between what that given asset supports at the time it is contributed by a given partner to the project and what it should support to actually become (part of) a reference implementation of the given GE. * Entries related to new functional or non-functional features we wish to implement in an asset adopted as baseline for the development of the reference implementation of a given GE (or part of it), in order to further evolve it and therefore, evolve the corresponding GE (since GEs specifications may evolve over time and offer different functionality in subsequent releases of FI-WARE) * Entries related to integration of assets, in those cases where an asset has to be combined with other assets to build the reference implementation of a given GE. Note that these entries are different than those ones related to implementing interfaces/protocols, etc in an asset implementing (part of) a GE, in order to support integration with another GE, because interfaces/protocols enabling integration of GEs should be part of their open specifications and, therefore, should be considered a particular case of points 1. or 2. * Note, that regarding a given feature request, there will be essentially five scenarios: * The feature applies to some of the GEs we have already identified in the FI-WARE High-level Description, and for which an asset has already been identified (therefore we have already identified entries for it in the FI-WARE backlog) * The feature applies to some of the GEs we have already identified in the FI-WARE High-level Description, but for which an asset hasn't already been identified (it is a gap we have already identified that none of the partners in FI-WARE is able to fill contributing an asset) * The feature applies to some GE we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE (in the FI-WARE High-level Description) but we agree to incorporate it in the roadmap, despite no partner has an asset that can be contributed as baseline for development of a reference implementation * The feature applies to some GE we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE (in the FI-WARE High-level Description) but we agree to incorporate it, and there is a partner that has an asset that may be contributed as baseline for development of a reference implementation * The feature applies to some enabler we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE and we don't agree to accept it as GE since it is a common, yet domain-specific, platform enabler, but not a GE The first case will lead to negotiation of priorities between us and the UC project. The second and third case will lead to requirements that we should take into account in our Open Calls. The fourth case require careful consideration because we won't be able to change the assignment of resources to a given partner. We need to calibrate whether the partner can adjust its efforts to deal with more GEs that the originally expected (maybe addressing less new functionality in each) or we should finally lead to definition of requirements for an Open Call. * Despite the most active UC projects may start creating some initial requests for entries in the FI-WARE backlog during August, I do not expect so much activity, so keep going on your own, generating entries in the FI-WARE backlogs based on the principles of the previous point. During September negotiations with UC projects should become more intense. We indeed agreed with the UC projects to have a milestone by end of September in which we should already have produced a number of entries in the FI-WARE backlogs on our own, and they should have been produced some requests for entries in our FI-WARE backlogs. A period of negotiation/consolidation is then planned, which should end by end of November, with the first official release of the FI-WARE backlog to be considered for the first release of FI-WARE and also a clear definition of what we are going to request in the first Open Call of FI-WARE ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Backlog entries description v0 1 11-07-12.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 52224 bytes Desc: Backlog entries description v0 1 11-07-12.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jhierro.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 443 bytes Desc: jhierro.vcf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Aug 1 09:48:13 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:48:13 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] TR: [Fiware-wpl] Activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website Message-ID: <12172_1312184894_4E365A3E_12172_6094_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206058B1423@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> FYI. Second email from Juanjo detailing step 3 as envisaged so far. Also announced and discussed at our last audio conf but with here with some more details & thoughts. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : jeudi 28 juillet 2011 08:22 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] Activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website Hi all, Continuing with the activities we have to start, once we produced the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision): 1. Launch of activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog 2. Management of relationship with FI-PPP UC projects 3. Launch of activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website (setup of the public Wiki and start of activities in blogs) This email elaborates on the third points. We will also review this in the confcall we have scheduled for July 28, 11:30am Cheers, -- Juanjo 3. Activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website 3.1 Public Wiki We have setup a public Wiki associated to the FI-WARE project. One of our main goals during August will be to populate this Wiki with contents. This will be based on Wikimedia and will be accessible from the FI-WARE website. The intention is that the Wiki will be integrated in FusionForge because that way we will take advantage of the single sign-on functionality that FusionForge offers. Unfortunately, this is taking more time than expected, so we have decided to follow the next steps: 1. Setup a standalone public Wikimedia Wiki on http://wiki.fi-ware.eu with a number of special accounts. 2. Populate the public Wiki with contents, using the special user accounts for this purpose. In parallel, we will continue with the installation of a public Wikimedia Wiki in FusionForge 3. Once we have a public Wikimedia Wiki in FusionForge, we will migrate the contents from the standalone Wiki to the Wiki linked to FusionForge 4. Give editorial access to the rest of the members of the project through their accounts in FusionForge Point 1 has been done. Users and Passwords will be sent to you in separate email. Regarding point 2: * The general Table of Contents of the FI-WARE Wiki is still to be defined but will contain items for the Product Vision and a FAQ. * We will translate contents of the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision) document into the public Wiki. We are currently exploring whether this step can be automated/semi-automated or whether we will have to distribute the tasks among the different chapter teams (using the special accounts that have been setup). 3.2 Blogs We will start populating the blogs. Still we have to close the new design, which will come with an update of the Wordpress underlying platform. This should be ready mid next week. Each WP team will be asked to develop a number of posts on their corresponding chapter blogs: * WPL to generate a posts providing a report on work so far, announcing delivery of the Product Vision and providing link to the corresponding chapter in the Wiki, elaborating on those points that he believes are more relevant. * We recommend to write down a poston each item listed in the Question Marks section. * Academic partners should start writing a post on state of the art for some part of the chapter (remind that we wanted to have on post every month) * Posts dealing with announcements of events (e.g., ServiceWave), workshops, etc. are welcome * Other requests for specific posts will be made during August. 3.3 Twitter We already have an account on twitter (user account "fiware"). It is highly recommended that you join twitter and register as follower of this account. Specific instructions will follow next week regarding posting in this twitter account. We may discuss what to do during our confcall. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jhierro.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 443 bytes Desc: jhierro.vcf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Aug 1 09:54:41 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:54:41 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] TR: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT (updated): Coordination of FI-WARE backlog related activities Message-ID: <4742_1312185282_4E365BC2_4742_3802_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206058B1440@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> FYI. I updated accordingly the file in features backlog of FI-WARE Security project repository. Please use that file to start giving it a try. First features entered would be reviewed and discussed at our next audio conf on Friday 5/08 10am-12am) 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 11:49 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT (updated): Coordination of FI-WARE backlog related activities Hi all, I pass you another copy of the original message which I have updated to capture the response of to some of the valuable comments you have made during the confcall this morning. This way, we have a single source were hints about how to face next steps are described. I have added also the remark on what should be registered in the backlog (not entries describing what a current asset may already provide but rather "work to be done") Please don't hesitate to ask any question you may have. This is a process that we are about to launch and it is important that we launch it the right way. Thanks and best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: Coordination of FI-WARE backlog related activities Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:24:44 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, Once we have dealt with the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision) we have to start working in three major tasks on which we should concentrate our efforts until our plenary meeting in Turin: 1. Launch of activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog 2. Management of relationship with FI-PPP UC projects 3. Launch of activities dealing with development of contents of the FI-WARE website (setup of the public Wiki and start of activities in blogs) This email elaborates on the first two points. We will review this in the confcall we have scheduled for July 28, 11:30am Cheers, -- Juanjo 1. Launch of activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog At this point, I assume that you already understand the basis of how we plan to use Agile in our project. It summary, we will use it for managing the FI-WARE requirements, which will take the form of entries in what we refer as the FI-WARE backlog. In any case, please review the presentation I made during our kick-off meeting in May: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/37/FI-WARE+agile+Intro+vfinal.pptx Following is the list of steps and considerations to take into account when launching the activities dealing with final decision on assets and the creation of the FI-WARE backlog: * The first step we have to deal with has to do with closing the decision on the assets we will adopt as baseline for the reference implementation of each of the GEs. For this, every WP will have to come with a first proposal by August 31st on what asset, from what project+partner, will be adopted as baseline for the reference implementation of each of the GEs in the corresponding chapter. The different WP/chapter teams have to start this exercise now. It may not be feasible to close the mapping of assets for each of the GEs identified in a given chapter. This may be particularly the case for assets related to GEs for which there are still may points under discussion. It may also happen that we have identified assets for some of the components of a GE but not all. But at least we should have a relatively mature list of assets identified for the main GEs in each chapter by August 31st. This represents a first action point on WPLs and WPAs. * There are some special cases in which we have a GE but two "competing" assets. Unless the contributing partners agree to carry out a joint development (open source or not), the number of GEs where this happens may allow us to make exceptions and allow two alternative reference implementations for the same GE (this instead of artificially trying to merge both). Of course, we have to work so that the two assets end up supporting the corresponding GE open specifications (APIs, protocols, visible behaviour) which should be only one. We also have to be able to provide enough rationale for this decission (e.g., reference implementations rely on different persistence technology or the combination of the two is what may allow an application provider to setup the most efficient solution in some large-scale, highly distributed architectures. We have to be very careful and analyze each of the cases where we will allow alternative reference implementations. These should be exceptions. Currently, the only one clearly identified is the Publish/Subscribe Broker GE, where two reference implementations (one from Orange, another from TI) will be developed. It has been pointed out that some of these exceptions may be found in the IoT chapter but we have to carefully analyze them and provide the rationale (here, I would add that we also have to find the way to reach the necessary alignment with APIs specified in the Data/Context Management chapter. * Once assets have been identified (for some of the GEs, this decision may be taken right now) we have to start to populate the FI-WARE backlog. * The fields for entries in the FI-PPP backlog (which includes the FI-WARE backlog) have already been defined and correspond to the ones described in the attached template (spreadsheet). Note that entries in the FI-PPP backlog will not comprise just features/user-stories linked to FI-WARE GEs but to other platform enablers which may happen to be common to several applications while still domain-specific. It will also comprise the backlogs of some of the UC projects, associated to their actual application development project, but only for those UC projects that have agreed to follow Agile. If you have any question/doubt regarding semantics of any field in the template, please let Thomas or me know. * Regarding tools to create, maintain and manage requests on entries of the FI-PPP backlog, the following has been agreed: * The FI-PPP will use Agilefant in order to perform the overall management of entries in backlogs. The FI-PPP will go for a configuration where we will define multiple backlogs in Agilefant. One per GE in each chapter, one covering entries for all the still uncategorized platform enablers, one (at least) for other platform enablers that are common but domain-specific (therefore out of the scope of FI-WARE) and one per each of the UC projects that wish to use Agilefant to manage their own application backlog (not all). This with the ability to transfer entries from one backlog to another. * However, Agilefant is pretty simple, and entries of a backlog in Agilefant cannot be flexibly configured as to contain all of the fields we have defined for the FI-PPP backlog template (attached). Therefore, the description field of each entry in an Agilefant backlog will have to include an URL link to a page on a Wiki (based on Wikimedia) where all fields for that entry, as defined in the attached spreadsheet, can be fully specified. Regarding entries linked to the FI-WARE backlogs, and probably also for entries linked to platform enablers in general, this wiki will be provided by FI-WARE. ATOS, Thomas and me will work on defining the process and instructions on how to create backlog entries in the Wiki and in Agilefant before Thursday next week. In the meantime, you may wish to start working on entries, just using spreadsheets following the attached template. * FI-WARE will put in place some system to manage the lifecycle of requests to create new entries in the FI-WARE backlogs or modify existing ones by third parties. This tool should not be offered just to UC projects but to the general public, because we have to be open to other communities. Most probably this tool will be the tracker system in FusionForge but we are still analyzing whether it could be managed directly through Agilefant, defining an intermediate backlog about "request for platform enablers" where request for entries formulated by UC projects would be created and only transferred to the FI-WARE backlogs when agreed with FI-WARE. However, the issue of dealing with other third parties/communities may lead to the need to put a more formal system such as tracker. ATOS, Thomas and me will work on this matter during the following days and will inform you before Thursday next week about what tool has been decided and what will be the procedures to follow. * One point that was already understood and agreed during the FI-PPP AB is that requirements from end-users on applications to be developed by UC projects are different from requirements on FI-WARE (on platform enablers in general). During investigation of a end-user requirement "X" (no matter if it is a Theme, an EPIC or an user-story), a given UC project may conclude that it needs to rely on a platform that support a number of features "a", "b", and "c" plus develop an application implementing functionalities "M", "N", "O" on top of that platform. These "a", "b" and "c" features should translate into entries initially linked to the "platform enablers" backlog. Some of them will finally be addressed in FI-WARE so therefore will be transferred to the FI-WARE backlog. Whether we will manage this transference directly on Agilefant or through a tracker system, is something to decide. Nevertheless, note that specification of "X", "M", "N", "O" will not be part of the FI-WARE backlog. The level of concreteness is also different: "X" and even "M", "N" and "O" may be very concrete, with a quite detailed specification. However, "a", "b" and "c", at the time they are formulated by a UC project, may be just in the form of a "theme" or "epic", according to Agile terminology. * Entries in backlog should evolve from Themes, to EPICS up to user-stories. Following remarks apply: * The frontiers between Themes and EPICs use to be diffuse, they correspond to description of features at different levels of granularity. However, what is important is that user-stories provides all the details of WHAT has to be done that a development team need to know to perform their development work. Themes and EPICs matches different stages of approximation during the interaction process you have to perform until you end up having well detailed user-stories. Note that when refining an EPIC, you may end up having it split into several finer-grain EPICs, but still EPICs. You may also end up having it split into several finer-grain EPICs and some user-stories (covering part of the original EPIC) * When planning a given sprint in Agile, only highest priority user-stories are considered. Themes and EPICs obviously not. This is because, at a given sprint, you only work on what can be done (get finished) by the end of the sprint. This means that if we have a MUST Theme or EPIC, it will never be developed before a COULD user-story. Themes and EPICs simply cannot be done (because development teams do not have all the info they need to implement them). * At a given point in time, features "a", "b" and "c" will be submitted to FI-WARE for consideration. This means they will first be submitted to the "platform enablers" backlog. FI-WARE will then determine whether the feature can be considered inside the scope of FI-WARE and what priority is finally assigned. This decision will most probably imply several interactions with the UC projects that have identified the features. As mentioned before, we will come in the coming days with a concrete proposal on tools and procedures adopted for managing this process. * Parallel to this process, UC projects may additionally require further clarifications about what we intend to deliver in a given chapter, for a given GE. In other words, they may ask for clarifications on parts of the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision). This should be driven in a formal manner, to avoid getting into chaos. Therefore, a specific tracker system associated to the High-level Description (Product Vision) will be put in place for UC projects to formulate their questions. Explanations given to resolve tickets should lead to creation/update of contents in a FAQ Wiki we should start creating. This system will be also offered later to the general public, * Parallel to UC projects running the process described above, FI-WARE should, own its own, work in defining entries for the FI-WARE backlogs. Whether they will be still generic ("themes" or "epics") or already detailed user-stories ready for implementation will depend on how clear we have things regarding the GEs in each of the chapters. There are three different types of entries that FI-WARE chapter teams should be able to generate from now until the Turing meeting (as a first milestone) * Entries related to new functional or non-functional features we need to implement in an asset adopted as baseline for the development of the reference implementation of a given GE (or part of it), in order to cover the gap between what that given asset supports at the time it is contributed by a given partner to the project and what it should support to actually become (part of) a reference implementation of the given GE. This will map to features we want to support during lifetime of FI-WARE. They should have a MUST or SHOULD MoSCoW priority assigned. * Entries related to new functional or non-functional features we wish to implement in an asset adopted as baseline for the development of the reference implementation of a given GE (or part of it), in order to further evolve it and therefore, evolve the corresponding GE (since GEs specifications may evolve over time and offer different functionality in subsequent releases of FI-WARE). This will map to features we may not support during lifetime of FI-WARE, for sure won't fit in the first release. They should have a SHOULD or COULD MoSCoW priority assigned. * Entries related to integration of assets, in those cases where an asset has to be combined with other assets to build the reference implementation of a given GE. Note that these entries are different than those ones related to implementing interfaces/protocols, etc in an asset implementing (part of) a GE, in order to support integration with another GE, because interfaces/protocols enabling integration of GEs should be part of their open specifications and, therefore, should be considered a particular case of points 1. or 2. A very IMPORTANT note: entries in the backlog should not describe what the assets adopted as baseline already provide, but what must, should, could be developed in those assets (see MoSCoW priority field in the attached template for FI-WARE backlog entries). A reminder about semantics linked to MoSCoW priorities: * MUST - Features that absolutely have to be done are categorized as Must. If any of these features are not done, the project will be considered a failure. * SHOULD - Features that are important to the success of the project, but are not absolute musts (they have a workaround or will not cause the project to fail) are categorized as Should * COULD - Features that are nice to have but are not core features are categorized as Could. * WON?T - Features that are not going to be implemented this time are marked as Wont. Remember that entries in the backlog are about "work to be done". User stories are, besides (and this distinguish them from themes and epics) work that is well-defined/detailed enough as to able to be done. Sometimes, it will be appropriate to create an user-story related to the specification of the API (or part of the API) that a given GE will have to provide and differentiate it from implementation (support) of some of the operations of that API, once it has been specified. * Note, that regarding a given feature request, there will be essentially five scenarios: * The feature applies to some of the GEs we have already identified in the FI-WARE High-level Description, and for which an asset has already been identified (therefore we have already identified entries for it in the FI-WARE backlog) * The feature applies to some of the GEs we have already identified in the FI-WARE High-level Description, but for which an asset hasn't already been identified (it is a gap we have already identified that none of the partners in FI-WARE is able to fill contributing an asset) * The feature applies to some GE we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE (in the FI-WARE High-level Description) but we agree to incorporate it in the roadmap, despite no partner has an asset that can be contributed as baseline for development of a reference implementation * The feature applies to some GE we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE (in the FI-WARE High-level Description) but we agree to incorporate it, and there is a partner that has an asset that may be contributed as baseline for development of a reference implementation * The feature applies to some enabler we hadn't identified initially in FI-WARE and we don't agree to accept it as GE since it is a common, yet domain-specific, platform enabler, but not a GE The first case will lead to negotiation of priorities between us and the UC project. The second and third case will lead to requirements that we should take into account in our Open Calls. The fourth case require careful consideration because we won't be able to change the assignment of resources to a given partner. We need to calibrate whether the partner can adjust its efforts to deal with more GEs that the originally planned (maybe addressing less new functionality in each) or we should finally issue an Open Call for the GE being considered. * Despite the most active UC projects may start creating some initial requests for entries in the FI-WARE backlog during August, I do not expect so much activity, so keep going on your own, generating entries in the FI-WARE backlogs based on the principles of the previous point. During September negotiations with UC projects should become more intense. We indeed agreed with the UC projects to have a milestone by end of September in which we should already have produced a number of entries in the FI-WARE backlogs on our own, and they should have been produced some requests for entries in our FI-WARE backlogs. A period of negotiation/consolidation is then planned, which should end by end of November, with the first official release of the FI-WARE backlog to be considered for the first release of FI-WARE and also a clear definition of what we are going to request in the first Open Call of FI-WARE * Some people have asked to me what should we do regarding the the second release of the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision). We will transfer contents of the first official release of the FI-WARE High-level Description (Product Vision) to the public Wiki at the website. From then on, we will work making updates on the Wiki, so we will get rid of editing MS Word documents, etc. Therefore, delivery of the second release of the Product Vision will consist essentially in ... passing an URL. Note that major changes will be incremental, located in very concrete places and delivered in a "continuous". The type of changes that I would expect would distinguish the second release compared to the first one are the following: * we should include a dedicated section per GE elaborating on the asset selected as baseline, which mostly will contain links to existing documentation which explains what the asset already provides today (user's/programmers guide, etc, whatever valuable documentation is available). This mostly what is going to be new in this "second release" (despite talking about releases would not make sense any more ... we will work in a continuous) * we will probably need to update/add some content as a result of tackling some of the "topics still under discussion" ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Backlog entries description v0 1 11-07-12.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 52224 bytes Desc: Backlog entries description v0 1 11-07-12.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jhierro.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 443 bytes Desc: jhierro.vcf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Aug 1 10:07:42 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - WP8 - Minutes of our last audio conf (29/07/11 10am-12am) Message-ID: <4742_1312186069_4E365ED5_4742_4376_1_47a3d2b3-229a-4b3d-bf25-fa0b62fc0183@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> Dear All, This just to let you know that I uploaded on the FI-WARE security project repository the minutes of our last audio conference. There are available at the following address: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/297/FI-WARE-WP8+audio+conf+2011-07-29+minutes+v1.0+.doc So please check for actions either continuing or to be performed prior to our next audio conf (this Friday - so 5/08/11 10am-12am as usual). Best regards and talk with you there. Regards, Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Tue Aug 2 17:04:28 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:04:28 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Task 8.4] Statuing on the optional assets. Message-ID: Dear Task8.4 contributors, We never had the opportunity to meet together in order discuss about the feasibility of different asset in order to come-up with a final version of the optional security enabler list. I hope that you will be available this week to have this meeting , otherwise we will have to postpone it to September. Here is a Doodle poll please provide your availability. http://doodle.com/tnruz6apppu224d3 Regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Thu Aug 4 09:14:39 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:14:39 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - Security AT - In-Reply-To: <4E4BDE7E16215048BF62154263FD43F0058DC4B8@INTMAIL01.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <29305_1311758899_4E2FDA32_29305_12390_1_2c77ccd5-2024-485d-ad42-53332db8ab71@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <4E4BDE7E16215048BF62154263FD43F0058DC4B8@INTMAIL01.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: Hi Rodrigo, Maybe one comment concerning the list of assets, as announced and agreed before, SAP will not provide the monitoring and signaling component (from Master). Thank you for your comprehension. Regards Slim From: Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez [mailto:rodrigo.diaz at atosresearch.eu] Sent: jeudi 4 ao?t 2011 09:11 To: BISSON Pascal; Antonio Garcia Vazquez; TRABELSI, Slim; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc: GIDOIN Daniel; Michael Osborne; Jan Camenisch; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Subject: RE: FI-WARE - Security AT - Dear all, Find attached the initial assessment for T8.3. It's a draft version that needs more refinement but it can be used to identify the main gaps. Antonio will continue working on this next week to provide a more refined version. Regards, Rodrigo From: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Sent: mi?rcoles, 27 de julio de 2011 11:28 To: Antonio Garcia Vazquez; Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez; TRABELSI, Slim; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc: BISSON Pascal; GIDOIN Daniel; Michael Osborne; Jan Camenisch; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Subject: FI-WARE - Security AT - Importance: High Dear Task leaders, The slide attached even if still incomplete (but Daniel is working hard its completion with the rest of the T8.1 team) gives you an idea of what I was requesting - among others - as per last audio conf minutes (see 22/07/11 audio conf minutes). This slides is interesting in many respects as it gives you based on assets attached to a task (here T8.1) the way we intend to link (orchestrate) altogether the assets we have, to achieve some of the new (innovative) functionalities that would be offered by the targeted enabler (here Security monitoring GE). It can be used as it is here to depict degree of complementarity (also overlap if any) of the assets we have selected to achieve GE functionalities. Furthermore it can be used to clearly identify gaps we have and so that we would have to cover either through developments at the level of this (T8.1) team (e.g. network topology) or to be addressed through Open Calls to come. Materializing the way we see our assets working together to deliver GEs (innovative) functionalities would also force us to also address and start detailing the enhancements or changes we see in each of them (this being seen as as many features to be reported in the features backlog we are busy with). Last but not least it can also help us to figure out we would be requested from other ATs (this is especially true in the attached slide for what concerns CMDB we would need to achieve our targeted functionalities). Hope this email would be helpful to you and that with this email and slide we could produce similar slides for each of the GEs owned at the level of each of your task. To be further discussed with you at our next audio conference. Would appreciate if you could come up at our audio conf of Friday with similar slides from your side to be introduced and discussed as it can only help us to make progress on this. Hearing from you and talk with you on Friday. Best Regards, Pascal ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rodrigo.diaz at atosresearch.eu Thu Aug 4 09:54:18 2011 From: rodrigo.diaz at atosresearch.eu (Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:54:18 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - Security AT - In-Reply-To: References: <29305_1311758899_4E2FDA32_29305_12390_1_2c77ccd5-2024-485d-ad42-53332db8ab71@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <4E4BDE7E16215048BF62154263FD43F0058DC4B8@INTMAIL01.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <4E4BDE7E16215048BF62154263FD43F0058DC4FF@INTMAIL01.es.int.atosorigin.com> Thanks Slim, We will update it in the next version. Regards, Rodrigo From: TRABELSI, Slim [mailto:slim.trabelsi at sap.com] Sent: jueves, 04 de agosto de 2011 9:15 To: Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez Cc: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: RE: FI-WARE - Security AT - Hi Rodrigo, Maybe one comment concerning the list of assets, as announced and agreed before, SAP will not provide the monitoring and signaling component (from Master). Thank you for your comprehension. Regards Slim From: Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez [mailto:rodrigo.diaz at atosresearch.eu] Sent: jeudi 4 ao?t 2011 09:11 To: BISSON Pascal; Antonio Garcia Vazquez; TRABELSI, Slim; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc: GIDOIN Daniel; Michael Osborne; Jan Camenisch; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Subject: RE: FI-WARE - Security AT - Dear all, Find attached the initial assessment for T8.3. It's a draft version that needs more refinement but it can be used to identify the main gaps. Antonio will continue working on this next week to provide a more refined version. Regards, Rodrigo From: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Sent: mi?rcoles, 27 de julio de 2011 11:28 To: Antonio Garcia Vazquez; Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez; TRABELSI, Slim; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc: BISSON Pascal; GIDOIN Daniel; Michael Osborne; Jan Camenisch; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Subject: FI-WARE - Security AT - Importance: High Dear Task leaders, The slide attached even if still incomplete (but Daniel is working hard its completion with the rest of the T8.1 team) gives you an idea of what I was requesting - among others - as per last audio conf minutes (see 22/07/11 audio conf minutes). This slides is interesting in many respects as it gives you based on assets attached to a task (here T8.1) the way we intend to link (orchestrate) altogether the assets we have, to achieve some of the new (innovative) functionalities that would be offered by the targeted enabler (here Security monitoring GE). It can be used as it is here to depict degree of complementarity (also overlap if any) of the assets we have selected to achieve GE functionalities. Furthermore it can be used to clearly identify gaps we have and so that we would have to cover either through developments at the level of this (T8.1) team (e.g. network topology) or to be addressed through Open Calls to come. Materializing the way we see our assets working together to deliver GEs (innovative) functionalities would also force us to also address and start detailing the enhancements or changes we see in each of them (this being seen as as many features to be reported in the features backlog we are busy with). Last but not least it can also help us to figure out we would be requested from other ATs (this is especially true in the attached slide for what concerns CMDB we would need to achieve our targeted functionalities). Hope this email would be helpful to you and that with this email and slide we could produce similar slides for each of the GEs owned at the level of each of your task. To be further discussed with you at our next audio conference. Would appreciate if you could come up at our audio conf of Friday with similar slides from your side to be introduced and discussed as it can only help us to make progress on this. Hearing from you and talk with you on Friday. Best Regards, Pascal ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Aug 4 12:22:17 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:22:17 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE WP8 Agenda for tomorrow's audio Message-ID: <22043_1312453341_4E3A72DD_22043_14341_1_01e62d62-3ea6-449a-b843-153f0de7743e@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> Dear All, Here is the Agenda for tomorrow's audio: 1. Review of actions as per last minutes. This will let us among other to cover: ? Feedback to WP9 ? Feedback to SafeCity comments we got on Security 2. Report on progress on a per task basis regarding (counting here on each of the Task leads to have it prepared): ? Mapping of (selected) assets to each of the GEs ? Gaps identified ? Initial features reported to the backlog Our audio conf tomorrow will start as usual at 10am. Talk to you there. Best Regards, Pascal PS: Here are the details to join: Meeting room number would be the following one : 391581 LocalConnect number to join: Australia Australia Toll Free 1800 005 574 Australia Sydney +61 (0) 282 239 767 Austria Vienna +43 (0) 2682 205 6609 Belgium Brussels +32 (0) 2 789 8678 Denmark Copenhagen +45 3271 4340 Finland Helsinki +358 (0) 923 142 830 France Lyon +33 (0) 426 840 285 France Marseille +33 (0) 488 915 385 France Paris +33 (0) 170 994 816 Germany Berlin +49 (0) 3072 616 7342 Germany D?sseldorf +49 (0) 2115 407 3902 Germany Frankfurt +49 (0) 6971 044 5635 Germany Hamburg +49 (0) 4080 902 0684 Germany Munich +49 (0) 8924 443 2893 Germany Stuttgart +49 (0) 7111 856 2130 Hong Kong Hong Kong +852 301 145 59 Hungary Budapest +36 (06) 1-889-3286 Ireland Dublin +353 (0) 14 860 780 Israel Israel Toll Free 1809 245 981 Italy Milan +39 0 230 413 017 Italy Rome +39 0 645 217 056 Italy Turin +39 0 112 179 2159 Japan Japan Toll Free 005 311 212 65 Japan Tokyo +81 (0) 357 675 025 Korea, Republic Of Seoul +82 (0) 234 831 224 Luxembourg Luxemburg City +352 2700 41 42 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur +60 (0) 377 124 640 Netherlands Amsterdam +31 (0) 207 948 529 New Zealand Auckland +64 (0) 9 919 2428 Norway Oslo +47 2153 3919 Poland Poland Toll Free 0080 0121 1304 Portugal Portugal Toll Free 800 814 183 Russia Russia Toll Free 81080 02209 4011 Singapore Singapore +65 6622 1068 Spain Barcelona +34 93 492 3235 Spain Madrid +34 91 788 9908 Sweden Stockholm +46 (0) 850 520 145 Switzerland Geneva +41 (0) 225 927 428 United Kingdom Birmingham +44 (0) 121 260 4686 United Kingdom London +44 (0) 207 153 9902 United Kingdom Manchester +44 (0) 161 250 0679 United States USA & Canada Toll Free 1888 249 0050 United States USA Toll +1 954 334 1559 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Fri Aug 5 10:09:54 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:09:54 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] Audio-conf of today (documents to be discussed) Message-ID: <16525_1312531797_4E3BA555_16525_18360_1_b9da31b4-612a-421b-b995-4861fa32a43a@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> Dear All, Document we initiated regarding answer to give to Safecity UC and WP9 document on FI-WARE IDE. To be discussed at our audio conf of today (so for you to check check and complete). Will open the call in a minute. Talk to you there. Regards, Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP8 Answer to Safecity on Securityconcerns-THA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: WP8 Answer to Safecity on Securityconcerns-THA.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: THA-ReadingOfWP9document-PB.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: THA-ReadingOfWP9document-PB.doc URL: From Olivier.Festor at inria.fr Sat Aug 6 06:04:03 2011 From: Olivier.Festor at inria.fr (Olivier Festor) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:04:03 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] Audio-conf of today (documents to be discussed) In-Reply-To: <16525_1312531797_4E3BA555_16525_18360_1_b9da31b4-612a-421b-b995-4861fa32a43a@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> References: <16525_1312531797_4E3BA555_16525_18360_1_b9da31b4-612a-421b-b995-4861fa32a43a@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> Message-ID: Dear Pascal I am on vacation (in the US) until August 17th, 2011. I will not be able to attend any audio conference before this date. Best Regards /olivier Festor On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:09 AM, BISSON Pascal wrote: > Dear All, > > > Document we initiated regarding answer to give to Safecity UC and WP9 document on FI-WARE IDE. > > To be discussed at our audio conf of today (so for you to check check and complete). > > Will open the call in a minute. > > Talk to you there. > > Regards,< /o:p> > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-security mailing list > Fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-security -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Aug 8 12:15:49 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:15:49 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - WP8 - Minutes of Last Audio conf (05/08/2011) Message-ID: <16321_1312798551_4E3FB757_16321_9466_1_2d5da87c-6e85-484d-892a-a72981bb5f39@THSONEA01HUB05P.one.grp> Dear All, Minutes of our WP8 weekly audio conf of last Friday 05/08/11 have been uploaded on project repository and are now available at the following address: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/302/FI-WARE-WP8+audio+conf+2011-08-05+minutes+v1.0+.doc Please check and make use profitably of these minutes to perform actions which have been requested especially in view of activities recently launched (Features backlog among others although not limited to it) Talk to you on Friday 12/08 at 10am to review progress on actions. Best Regards, Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Aug 9 12:29:53 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:29:53 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Fiware-wpl] WP9 FI-WARE DevComE deliverable In-Reply-To: <4E32AA0F.2040307@eng.it> References: <4E32AA0F.2040307@eng.it> Message-ID: <11226_1312885795_4E410C23_11226_19270_3_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E020605BD304F@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Matteo, Sorry for the delay in me as WP8 Lead answering your demand but it took me more time than expected this even more that I wanted to have it checked, potentially completed and even more shared. Attached is the feedback which is mine and the one on the Security Team. Hope it would be useful to you. 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 Matteo Melideo Envoy? : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 14:40 ? : FI-WARE WPL Cc : Stefano De Panfilis; Davide Dalle Carbonare Objet : [Fiware-wpl] WP9 FI-WARE DevComE deliverable Dear Wp Leaders, in Wp9 we have produced the first version of FI-WARE DevComE Technical description v1.0. The document has to be aligned to the Product Vision, so partners (and Juanjo) are entitled to provide their comments if they feel like there is something which doesn't align from their point of view. Anyway we think it is important to circulate this document to collect as much feedbacks\comments as possible before the plenary in Turin and, if possible, arrange also some conference calls with you. In this respect, it would be really helpful for us to have a contact point from each Work package acting as interface with the Wp9 and available for a short interview. Sorry for bothering you with an additional document to read but this is very short (and probably enjoyable :-) ) and we consider your feedbacks extremely important for the future developments. Thanks in advance and best regards, Matteo Melideo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE DevComE Technical description V1 0 WP8_THA_Feedback.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: FI-WARE DevComE Technical description V1 0 WP8_THA_Feedback.doc URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Aug 9 14:38:14 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:38:14 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Re: [FI-PPP AB] SafeCity initial feedback on the High Level Description document In-Reply-To: <4E30C430.7090606@tid.es> References: <4E30C430.7090606@tid.es> Message-ID: <10576_1312893495_4E412A37_10576_12651_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E020605BD31A6@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Juanjo, Back to you on the topic and apologize for the delay. Find attached to this email complementary answer from WP8 to SafeCity UC project regarding feedback they provided us as per presentation of Security chapter at last AB Meeting. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : jeudi 28 juillet 2011 04:07 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Re: [FI-PPP AB] SafeCity initial feedback on the High Level Description document Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed, if you read bottom-up: * A message sent by the Safecity UC project providing initial feedback on our FI-WARE High-level Description draft * My initial response to their comments WPLs/WPAs of the Cloud, Data/Context Management, I2ND and Security Chapters are entitled to: * Review the comments from Safecity (see attached document) * Review my response and confirm they are Ok or comment on them I believe it is worth answering quickly to this first set of comments to demostrate responsiveness to UC projects inputs. Please try to provide your feedback asap, tomorrow noon at the latest. Thanks and best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [FI-PPP AB] SafeCity initial feedback on the High Level Description document Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:07:24 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro To: ab at fi-ppp.eu CC: safecity-ptc at hi-research.eu Hi Peretz and Roberto, Thanks very much for your input. We promise to come back with a more detailed response later once we analyze your input document together with experts from the Cloud, Data/Context Management, I2ND and Security teams. However, let me share with you a very quick response to your comments just on my own (therefore you cannot take it as definitive): 1. On the issue about private Clouds: There is nothing in the definition of FI-WARE that prevents you to setup your own private Cloud or, more specifically, your own virtual infrastructure on the Cloud where your applications are only accessible through private, dedicated, connections. Remember that a fundamental concept in FI-WARE is that there is not "single universal FI-WARE Instance" as such. A trial in phase 2 may setup its own dedicated FI-WARE instance, although it's true that several trials may agree to share a FI-WARE Instance. As a security measure, for example, you may decide to setup your own FI-WARE Cloud Hosting Instance were you plan to host just your applications. You may also, share a FI-WARE Cloud Hosting Instance with other trials, but configure your IaaS virtual infrastructure so that your applications hosted there are only accessible through dedicated VPN connections, for example. It is up to a trial in phase 2 to decide what is the FI-WARE Instance(s) it is going to rely on and, as a consequence, who is going to play the roles of FI-WARE Instance Providers in the trial. In addition, it is up to the FI-WARE Instance Provider to determine how a given FI-WARE Instance is setup and configured. Besides, it is up to the Application Provider to decide what sort of virtual infrastructure it wants to setup to host its applications. As an example, you may setup in your trial a FI-WARE Instance that includes Cloud Hosting capabilities and allows to setup virtual hosting infrastructures that host applications only available through VPNs or even more private/dedicated connections. All concepts regarding FI-WARE Instances, FI-WARE Instance Providers, etc were defined in the "FI-WARE Overall Vision" chapter. Nevertheless, your comment raise the fact that some of the explanations we have provided are not that clear and that is what really matters (like when you compare Quality of Experience vs Quality of Service :-) We were finishing integration of the official deliverable and expecting to get it done by today, a little bit late compared to what it was expected, but I believe that is worth trying to introduce the necessary changes that may clarify this matter. Of course, we will not be able to solve all the questions. We plan to continuously enhance the description, as comments like yours arrive and are handled. I take the opportunity to clarify that the kind of advanced features we described in the Cloud Hosting and the I2ND chapters related to dynamic management of network resources are mostly oriented to go beyond existing Cloud hosting services in order to take the most of available network resources, being able to use spare network resources (capacity) when they exist. Currently, you can setup a VPN to your application hosted in the Cloud, but your connection has a established bandwidth and doesn't change so dynamically. As a consequence, if your application is not using the whole bandwith during a certain period of time, another application you may own cannot use the spare bandwith and increase its VPN bandwidth during the period (both VPNs may have been setup through the same physical, private communication line). Essentially, we are trying to have more dynamic solutions here and translate the same kind of concepts used in current Clouds regarding management of computing resources to network resources. But this is something that goes beyond your most critical need, which would be that of creating private Clouds or, more specifically, Clouds accessible through virtual private connections. There, I can assure you that you would get your requirement fulfilled as explained above. I believe it was inherent in the description of the Cloud Hosting chapter since we describe there that VPNs, etc may be part of the IaaS virtual infrastructure you may define for your application (this is referred as the IaaS Service Manifest). However, it seems like we just need to state that more explicitly because apparently you derived that setting up private Clouds where applications are accessible through dedicated virtual private connections was not possible, and that is wrong. 2. On the issue about multi-media analysis: As you explain in your document, there are multiple ways to solve an scenario like the one you describe. But precisely that is the point. FI-WARE is a general purpose platform, therefore, it doesn't dictate neither how a particular FI-WARE Instance has to be setup for a particular trial, nor how applications will be designed to use that FI-WARE Instance. We follow here a fundamental principle in design of general-purpose platforms: if you take many decisions on behalf of the application designer and provider, you will end up taking the worst ones. The two possible solutions you describe for your scenario can be programmend to run on FI-WARE Instances. Both. It is up to you to decide what is the one that better suites your needs. I have to say that you mention in your document that while the two solutions are valid, the second one would be safer (although less efficient). I have to comment that it really depends on how you decide to setup your FI-WARE Instance: * You may decide that your application will be hosted in a dedicated FI-WARE Instance. Therefore, there is no risk that third-party applications can access information gathered by your application. As such, there is nothing that prevents you to set up your own FI-WARE Instance hosting the multimedia analysis GE, together with the DB of faces, and your own application in a safe way. Again, the point is that this would be up to you. Note that, in addition, you would be able to setup the Security Monitoring GE in that FI-WARE instance, which may help you to monitor and handle any security attack that you may receive. But this would go in addition. * A slight variation of the previous configuration would be that of keeping your application in a shared FI-WARE Instance supporting Cloud Hosting capabilities, then configuring your virtual hosting infrastructure so that resources (computing, storage, network) are not shared with those from other applications (in other words, you setup your own VDC, and establish a number of RA-SLOs establishing restrictions such as your software/data is never going to run on a server node where third party applications may be co-located to run). Of course, this option is more risky than the previous, because the more isolated your resources are, the safer. But should be safe anyway. And again, the point is that this would be up to you. Same comment regarding benefits of the Security monitoring capabilities would apply here. The second solution would probably be the best one if you decide to run the multimedia analysis GE in a FI-WARE Instance and you don't want to setup restriction on whether your application can be reallocated together with those from others. In this solution, you have decided to adopt a design decision that allows to take advantage of sharing resources in a FI-WARE Instance, but still be safe. Again, it is up to you to go for this option and FI-WARE should not preclude you to do that. 3. Bottom-line: There are many decisions that you should leave on the hands of application provider or the application developer when you design a general-purpose platform. Otherwise, you are doing things wrong and you are going to fail. We have tried to follow this principle as much as possible, not only in the design of GEs and the Reference Architecture of each of the FI-WARE chapters but also introducing the concept of FI-WARE Instances that can be federated (or not, depends on the decision of a particular FI-WARE Instance Provider). That's why there is no concept of single, universal FI-WARE Instance (like google.com) where all Future Internet applications would be hosted. The ability to create dedicated FI-WARE Instances, and even use multiple FI-WARE chapter instances, where some might be shared while others won't in a kind of hybrid solution, brings the greatest flexibility to be able to cope with the needs of almost all applications. Needs that we cannot predict in advance. We may have decided that all data/context elements interchanged through the Publish/Subscribe Broker GE or processed through the Complex Event Processing GE should comply to a particular XML document format we may dictate a standard in FI-WARE. That had made our lifes easier at the implementation phase as you may imagine. But this had been a wrong decission because many applications wish to be free to decide what concrete format to use. Therefore, we decided that data/context elements can follow any format a given application may decide to adopt and that the Data/Context Management GEs should be able to cope with any of them, without this meaning that you pay a performance penalty. This is the kind of design decisions we believe we also have to adopt at the level of GEs, in addition to the principles about FI-WARE Instances and federation of FI-WARE Instances. BTW, I'm almost positive that the Complex Event Processing or the Publish/Subscribe Broker GEs are some of the GEs that would be rather useful for the kind of applications you need to design in Safecity (and I'm almost positive that they will be useful for most of the UC projects because they are truly generic). I guess you will have to deal with events and the need to process them or broadcast them to target applications or users. I would like to learn why you find the multimedia analysis GE useful but not these other two. UC projects should provide a rationale why they plan to use a specific enabler in those cases there is a GE provided by FI-WARE that already serves their needs. Otherwise, this would go against the spirit of the FI-PPP program. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 26/07/11 11:01, Peretz Gurel wrote: Dear FI-PPP AB partners, The attached short document is an initial feedback (at a high level) by SafeCity about the FI-WARE High Level Description document that was presented during the last FI-PPP AB meeting on July 11-12 in Madrid. We have already raised these concerns during the meeting. After the FI-PPP AB meeting we met with one of SafeCity end users (Madrid Police) and they have confirmed the concerns we had. The attached document is not replacing SafeCity requirements for Generic Enablers that will be provided in the required backlog format in due time. However, it is very important for us to understand the direction that FI-WARE is taking, particularly in regard to communications and security, as this has direct impact on SafeCity. Best regards, Peretz Gurel and Roberto Gavazzi SafeCity ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP8 Answer to Safecity on Securityconcerns-THA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: WP8 Answer to Safecity on Securityconcerns-THA.doc URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Aug 11 12:14:06 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:14:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog Message-ID: <9191_1313057650_4E43AB72_9191_6259_1_23b2af3a-3620-422a-9ffc-137e6dd7cb6c@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Dear All, This just to inform that put on the Security project repository (features backlog folder) the following documents: 1. An small update of feature backlog template (comprising examples on both an EPIC & User-Story features). This document was sent by Juanjo Yesterday and distributed to all WPLs https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/305/Backlog+entries+examples+by+TID+11-08-09.xls 2. As important the initial description of Thales Services features we (Daniel and I) came up with for T8.1. https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/304/Backlog+entries+description+v0+2+THA+11-08-11.xls I would ask here each of you and more precisely Task leaders to use this document as an example to follow for what concerns description of initial features attached to each of the GEs of their task (this with full support of GE owners and participants having contributed assets). * At our audio conf of tomorrow (12/08 at 10am sharp) we will review among others features contributed so far by each of the Task leads. Best regards and talk with you tomorrow morning. Regards, Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Aug 11 14:30:43 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:30:43 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - WP8 / Security AT - Audio conf of tomorrow (Details + Agenda) Message-ID: <9191_1313065850_4E43CB7A_9191_11102_1_ffd58b6e-1096-4452-bcb2-27cb047c5351@THSONEA01HUB05P.one.grp> Dear All, This just to confirm our weekly WP8 audio conference of tomorrow 12/08 at 10am On the Agenda: ? Review of actions as per minutes of last audio conf. ? Update coming from TID on Features Backlog template how it could be used to enter features (based on examples provided) ? Review of progress on Security entries to features backlog (this on per Task and per GE basis) ? Summer period replacements ? Review of progress on activities which have been launched by TID and which applies to all TWP (see minutes of previous audio conf) o Report on progress and milestones ? Turin's meeting attendance ? Other topics ? Here are the details to join tomorrow's audio: Meeting room number would be the following one : 391581 LocalConnect number to join: Australia Australia Toll Free 1800 005 574 Australia Sydney +61 (0) 282 239 767 Austria Vienna +43 (0) 2682 205 6609 Belgium Brussels +32 (0) 2 789 8678 Denmark Copenhagen +45 3271 4340 Finland Helsinki +358 (0) 923 142 830 France Lyon +33 (0) 426 840 285 France Marseille +33 (0) 488 915 385 France Paris +33 (0) 170 994 816 Germany Berlin +49 (0) 3072 616 7342 Germany D?sseldorf +49 (0) 2115 407 3902 Germany Frankfurt +49 (0) 6971 044 5635 Germany Hamburg +49 (0) 4080 902 0684 Germany Munich +49 (0) 8924 443 2893 Germany Stuttgart +49 (0) 7111 856 2130 Hong Kong Hong Kong +852 301 145 59 Hungary Budapest +36 (06) 1-889-3286 Ireland Dublin +353 (0) 14 860 780 Israel Israel Toll Free 1809 245 981 Italy Milan +39 0 230 413 017 Italy Rome +39 0 645 217 056 Italy Turin +39 0 112 179 2159 Japan Japan Toll Free 005 311 212 65 Japan Tokyo +81 (0) 357 675 025 Korea, Republic Of Seoul +82 (0) 234 831 224 Luxembourg Luxemburg City +352 2700 41 42 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur +60 (0) 377 124 640 Netherlands Amsterdam +31 (0) 207 948 529 New Zealand Auckland +64 (0) 9 919 2428 Norway Oslo +47 2153 3919 Poland Poland Toll Free 0080 0121 1304 Portugal Portugal Toll Free 800 814 183 Russia Russia Toll Free 81080 02209 4011 Singapore Singapore +65 6622 1068 Spain Barcelona +34 93 492 3235 Spain Madrid +34 91 788 9908 Sweden Stockholm +46 (0) 850 520 145 Switzerland Geneva +41 (0) 225 927 428 United Kingdom Birmingham +44 (0) 121 260 4686 United Kingdom London +44 (0) 207 153 9902 United Kingdom Manchester +44 (0) 161 250 0679 United States USA & Canada Toll Free 1888 249 0050 United States USA Toll +1 954 334 1559 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Aug 11 15:48:16 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:48:16 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] TR: [Fiware-wpl] Hints and examples about entries for the FI-WARE backlog Message-ID: <28642_1313070499_4E43DDA3_28642_13086_1_bb86cf41-f3d4-4f49-a70d-aae3cbb427c4@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> FYI. Hope it will be helpful for the work of each of you taking care of entries linked to a GE in the backlog. This input, together with the detailed description of next steps already provided, should gather all the information that is necessary so that you can continue to elaborate the entries linked to EPICs for the assets we have agreed to adopt as baseline for development of the reference implementation of (some of) the GEs in our Security chapter. Best Regards, Pascal PS: Don't forget also our audio conf of tomorrow where this would also be discussed/addressed. PS2: As for the excel attached - it has already been uploaded on the Security project repository (features backlog folder together with early descriptions we worked out with Daniel for Security Monitoring GE) De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 10 ao?t 2011 18:07 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] Hints and examples about entries for the FI-WARE backlog Hi all, One of the action points that were agreed had to do with providing some detail examples of what the entries for an EPIC and a User Story (or Story, for short) in the FI-WARE backlog. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet where I have included two separate sheets describing: * The template to be used for entries in the backlog. This is an update of the one you already had where I have addressed some points that were unresolved or required some clarifications. I have found also the need to add a new field (Detailed Status). * An example of an EPIC * An example of an User Story The examples are not "official". I just elaborate them on my own (although the EPIC was based on an initial proposal made by Fernando L?pez from TID). They just pretend to serve as example of the level of "granularity" associated to an EPIC compared to a User Story in an Agile backlog. What can be considered at the level of "user story" according to Agile ? Well ... there is no a black or white frontier between things nor a mathematical formula you can apply and then determine when something should be considered an EPIC rather than a User Story. As mentioned in the presentation on Agile we made at the FI-WARE kick-off meeting, User Stories have to comply with "INVEST" properties which mean they should be "Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimatable, Small and Testable". Some resources that may be helpful in finding out what we mean by INVEST properties can be found at [1], [2] and even [3] but in general: * Bear in mind that User Stories have to be something "Small" as to be affordable in a Sprint. Sprints should be of a maximum of two months in FI-WARE, unitary tests included (I'm even seriously considering to make them shorter, of about one month, therefore closer to the spirit of Agile). In general, something that would go beyond one single sprint should be considered an EPIC. * It should be also detailed enough so that you can say "I understand what I want well enough that I could think how a test for it could be designed." This is what means it should be "Testable". * User stories also should be "Estimatable" meaning that it should contain enough information enabling a developer to make a rough estimation of how much it would take to develop it (and shouldn't go beyond the time limits of a sprint :-). In our case, we are supposed to bring on the table tangible assets per GEs. Therefore, "Estimatable" means that the corresponding development team should be able to answer you how much would it take to implement the user story you are providing. Therefore, you can make a simple test: take one of your entries, go to the teams, and ask them "how much effort (roughly) would it take ?" ... if they give you answers like "unless you give me more details, it's simply impossible ... what you provide is too vague", then you don't have a user story for sure but probably an EPIC. * They don't need to have ALL the details nor have everything closed. There should be details that may be worked out while developing it (again, bear the duration of sprints in mind, i.e., maximum between 1-2 months). You shouldn't enter into that level of detail at which you are probably wasting time and unnecessarily delaying development. But good developers are able to provide accurate estimations without knowing all details. This is why they should be "Negotiable" (detailed description may vary/be-refined over time even during development but without this implying a relevant deviation from the original estimation) "Independent" and "Valuable" are also relevant but I guess there may be many EPICs that would also cope with those properties. That's why I would make emphasis on the previous points. Some references (but you may find much more, just search for INVEST properties for User Stories in Agile or discussions on EPICs vs User Stories): [1] - http://xp123.com/articles/invest-in-good-stories-and-smart-tasks/ [2] - http://agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/vaibhav/good-user-story-invest [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INVEST_%28mnemonic%29 Themes, are much more high-level or abstract than EPICs. The frontier between Themes and EPICs is also fuzzy, but is not that relevant as the frontier between EPICs and User Stories because this last frontier is what matters to know when you may stop refining. Indeed, we may adopt a convention regarding what to call Theme and what to call an EPIC. For example, we may map the notion of "Theme" to the notion of Generic Enabler in FI-WARE. Therefore, there would be a Theme linked to the "Publish/Subscribe Broker GE" which establishes as a goal that "Applications should be able to publish data and subscribe to data of their interest". The "target usage" text in the FI-WARE Product Vision / High-level Description deliverable for a given GE may well work as the content for the description of the corresponding Theme. Given said this, don't feel too frustrated if you are not able to identify too many User Stories in a first shot. I believe that we should feel confident if we end August with a complete and comprehensive set of EPICs per Generic Enabler. Then, during September, we may focus in trying to derive a number of User Stories from those EPICs that will enable to plan the first sprint in FI-WARE (which we should be able to start by early October) Please remind that we are supposed to rely the development of the reference implementation of FI-WARE GEs in a number of assets. We should concentrate on what will map into development tasks on those assets (so that they can integrate with other assets, comply with the final standard open royalty-free specification of interfaces we want them to provide, incorporate any function that we agree a target reference implementation must/should offer but our asset still do not offer). Don't focus on describing things already supported by an asset. Remember: backlog = work to be done. Review my previous mails on the matter if you have any doubt. Please share this with your teams. And don't hesitate to bring on the table any doubt, concern or comment you may have. Let's share them and share the answer. Last but not least, please send back two separate responses: a) first to Thomas and me, a response confirming that you have received this email b) later, to the fiware-wpl and fiware-wpa, an email confirming that you have read it and you feel like there is no essential obstacle for moving forward. If you have any initial questions/doubts/comments you would like to share at the time you send the response, please do so. Best regards, -- Juanjo ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Backlog entries examples by TID 11-08-09.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 70656 bytes Desc: Backlog entries examples by TID 11-08-09.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jhierro.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 443 bytes Desc: jhierro.vcf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From JCA at zurich.ibm.com Thu Aug 11 23:09:29 2011 From: JCA at zurich.ibm.com (Jan Camenisch) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:09:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog In-Reply-To: <9191_1313057650_4E43AB72_9191_6259_1_23b2af3a-3620-422a-9ffc-137e6dd7cb6c@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> References: <9191_1313057650_4E43AB72_9191_6259_1_23b2af3a-3620-422a-9ffc-137e6dd7cb6c@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Message-ID: Hej, Here's some backlog features that we most probably need. I'll be happy to fill them in xls after discussing tomorrow: - payment and billing mechanisms (with privacy). They can be built as an extension of identity mixer (idemix) but currently are not supported neither in the crypto nor in the policy languages etc that we will provide. - data track: privacy legislation requires that users be able to contact parties to which they have provided data, request which data these parties store and ask for correction. This requires a tool that keeps track of this data, helps users to manage these data. - policy editing and authoring support. While we have engines for the policy languages we will provide, there is only very little support for editing and authoring these policies. - access control engine integration - I believe we need to do some work here as well, hard to say before we have had the Task 8.2 Architecture meeting. Best, Jan On 11.08.2011, at 12:14, BISSON Pascal wrote: > Dear All, > > This just to inform that put on the Security project repository (features backlog folder) the following documents: > > 1. An small update of feature backlog template (comprising examples on both an EPIC & User-Story features). This document was sent by Juanjo Yesterday and distributed to all WPLs > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/305/Backlog+entries+examples+by+TID+11-08-09.xls > > 2. As important the initial description of Thales Services features we (Daniel and I) came up with for T8.1. > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/304/Backlog+entries+description+v0+2+THA+11-08-11.xls > > I would ask here each of you and more precisely Task leaders to use this document as an example to follow for what concerns description of initial features attached to each of the GEs of their task (this with full support of GE owners and participants having contributed assets). > ? At our audio conf of tomorrow (12/08 at 10am sharp) we will review among others features contributed so far by each of the Task leads. > > Best regards and talk with you tomorrow morning. > > Regards, > > Pascal Dr. Jan Camenisch Member, IBM Academy of Technology IBM Research - Zurich www.zurich.ibm.com/~jca tel: +41 44 724 8279 fax: +41 44 724 8953 http://twitter.com/#!/dtiIeynt_xreMi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Fri Aug 12 09:45:19 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:45:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog In-Reply-To: References: <9191_1313057650_4E43AB72_9191_6259_1_23b2af3a-3620-422a-9ffc-137e6dd7cb6c@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <3256_1313135120_4E44DA10_3256_4181_1_e15c577c-42ea-49b3-bf23-63e7464d30a4@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Hi Jan, Many thanks for your input that I really welcome. To be further discussed with you at our audio. Best Regards, Pascal De : Jan Camenisch [mailto:JCA at zurich.ibm.com] Envoy? : jeudi 11 ao?t 2011 23:09 ? : BISSON Pascal Cc : fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu; Gregory Neven; Michael Osborne; GIDOIN Daniel; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest); Antonio Garcia Vazquez; Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez; Pedro Soria Rodriguez; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Objet : Re: FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog Importance : Haute Hej, Here's some backlog features that we most probably need. I'll be happy to fill them in xls after discussing tomorrow: - payment and billing mechanisms (with privacy). They can be built as an extension of identity mixer (idemix) but currently are not supported neither in the crypto nor in the policy languages etc that we will provide. - data track: privacy legislation requires that users be able to contact parties to which they have provided data, request which data these parties store and ask for correction. This requires a tool that keeps track of this data, helps users to manage these data. - policy editing and authoring support. While we have engines for the policy languages we will provide, there is only very little support for editing and authoring these policies. - access control engine integration - I believe we need to do some work here as well, hard to say before we have had the Task 8.2 Architecture meeting. Best, Jan On 11.08.2011, at 12:14, BISSON Pascal wrote: Dear All, This just to inform that put on the Security project repository (features backlog folder) the following documents: 1. An small update of feature backlog template (comprising examples on both an EPIC & User-Story features). This document was sent by Juanjo Yesterday and distributed to all WPLs https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/305/Backlog+entries+examples+by+TID+11-08-09.xls 2. As important the initial description of Thales Services features we (Daniel and I) came up with for T8.1. https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/304/Backlog+entries+description+v0+2+THA+11-08-11.xls I would ask here each of you and more precisely Task leaders to use this document as an example to follow for what concerns description of initial features attached to each of the GEs of their task (this with full support of GE owners and participants having contributed assets). * At our audio conf of tomorrow (12/08 at 10am sharp) we will review among others features contributed so far by each of the Task leads. Best regards and talk with you tomorrow morning. Regards, Pascal Dr. Jan Camenisch Member, IBM Academy of Technology IBM Research - Zurich www.zurich.ibm.com/~jca tel: +41 44 724 8279 fax: +41 44 724 8953 http://twitter.com/#!/dtiIeynt_xreMi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gabor.marton at nsn.com Fri Aug 12 09:50:12 2011 From: gabor.marton at nsn.com (Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:50:12 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog In-Reply-To: References: <9191_1313057650_4E43AB72_9191_6259_1_23b2af3a-3620-422a-9ffc-137e6dd7cb6c@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <57CF2CA7825F474DACFAEB9EA1ED3A540461E34F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, unfortunately neither Robert nor myself can participate in todays conf.call because both of us has another meeting scheduled from 10:00. We don't yet have a mature idea for feature backlog. Our first --- and more like a demonstrative/example --- idea is that we propose feature requests that would result in the integration of the assets for achieving the GE functionality. E.g.: integration of the IdeMix solution with the IDM core would be such a step forward. We'll catch up from the minutes of the conf.call. Kind regards, G?bor ________________________________ From: ext Jan Camenisch [mailto:JCA at zurich.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:09 PM To: BISSON Pascal Cc: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu; Gregory Neven; Michael Osborne; GIDOIN Daniel; Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich); Marton, Gabor (NSN - HU/Budapest); Antonio Garcia Vazquez; Rodrigo Diaz Rodriguez; Pedro Soria Rodriguez; TRABELSI, Slim; LELEU Philippe Subject: Re: FI-WARE Security: initial features from T8.1 / Example to follow to contirbute your feature to Security part of the backlog Importance: High Hej, Here's some backlog features that we most probably need. I'll be happy to fill them in xls after discussing tomorrow: - payment and billing mechanisms (with privacy). They can be built as an extension of identity mixer (idemix) but currently are not supported neither in the crypto nor in the policy languages etc that we will provide. - data track: privacy legislation requires that users be able to contact parties to which they have provided data, request which data these parties store and ask for correction. This requires a tool that keeps track of this data, helps users to manage these data. - policy editing and authoring support. While we have engines for the policy languages we will provide, there is only very little support for editing and authoring these policies. - access control engine integration - I believe we need to do some work here as well, hard to say before we have had the Task 8.2 Architecture meeting. Best, Jan On 11.08.2011, at 12:14, BISSON Pascal wrote: Dear All, This just to inform that put on the Security project repository (features backlog folder) the following documents: 1. An small update of feature backlog template (comprising examples on both an EPIC & User-Story features). This document was sent by Juanjo Yesterday and distributed to all WPLs https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/305/Backlog+entries+examples+by+TID+11-08-09.xls 2. As important the initial description of Thales Services features we (Daniel and I) came up with for T8.1. https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/19/304/Backlog+entries+description+v0+2+THA+11-08-11.xls I would ask here each of you and more precisely Task leaders to use this document as an example to follow for what concerns description of initial features attached to each of the GEs of their task (this with full support of GE owners and participants having contributed assets). ? At our audio conf of tomorrow (12/08 at 10am sharp) we will review among others features contributed so far by each of the Task leads. Best regards and talk with you tomorrow morning. Regards, Pascal Dr. Jan Camenisch Member, IBM Academy of Technology IBM Research - Zurich www.zurich.ibm.com/~jca tel: +41 44 724 8279 fax: +41 44 724 8953 http://twitter.com/#!/dtiIeynt_xreMi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Fri Aug 12 16:04:38 2011 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] FI-WARE - WP8 - Minutes of today's audio Message-ID: <5555_1313157883_4E4532FB_5555_5560_1_6b3cb85d-a28d-428e-bfe1-119dc14c0557@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Dear All, This just to inform you that I've just uploaded the minutes of today's audio conf on the repository at the following address. As usual please ALL have a look and make your duties. Don't forget that I would be on vacation by EOB today and back on September 5th. My replacements as reported also in the minutes would be: For what concerns WP8 Lead: Philippe LELEU for the first two weeks of this vacation and then by Daniel GIDOIN for the third week. Please note also that Corinne SIEUX would replace at PCC level. Counting on you ALL to continue to make good progress Best Regards, Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antonio.garcia at atosresearch.eu Mon Aug 22 12:23:40 2011 From: antonio.garcia at atosresearch.eu (Antonio Garcia Vazquez) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:23:40 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] Backlog entries from Task 8.3 Message-ID: <0385F69C47D8694EA885D34BE18BCCC40316AB9F@INTMAIL02.es.int.atosorigin.com> Hello, See attached the first draft Excel file with the Backlog entries from Task 8.3 Best regards ************************************ * Antonio Garc?a V?zquez * * (+34) 91 214 9384 * * antonio.garcia at atosresearch.eu * ************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Backlog entries description WP8.3 v0.1.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 88576 bytes Desc: Backlog entries description WP8.3 v0.1.xls URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Aug 23 12:19:46 2011 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:19:46 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Fiware-wpl] WP9 FI-WARE DevComE deliverable In-Reply-To: <11226_1312885795_4E410C23_11226_19270_3_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E020605BD304F@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> References: <4E32AA0F.2040307@eng.it> <11226_1312885795_4E410C23_11226_19270_3_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E020605BD304F@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <4E537EC2.9080106@eng.it> Dear Pascal, thanks a lot for your input. Today is my first day after the summer break, I will be back to you by the end of this week. Regards, Matteo On 09/08/2011 12:29, BISSON Pascal wrote: > > Dear Matteo, > > Sorry for the delay in me as WP8 Lead answering your demand but it > took me more time than expected this even more that I wanted to have > it checked, potentially completed and even more shared. > > Attached is the feedback which is mine and the one on the Security Team. > > Hope it would be useful to you. > > 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* Matteo > Melideo > *Envoy? :* vendredi 29 juillet 2011 14:40 > *? :* FI-WARE WPL > *Cc :* Stefano De Panfilis; Davide Dalle Carbonare > *Objet :* [Fiware-wpl] WP9 FI-WARE DevComE deliverable > > Dear Wp Leaders, > in Wp9 we have produced the first version of FI-WARE DevComE Technical > description v1.0. > > The document has to be aligned to the Product Vision, so partners (and > Juanjo) are entitled to provide their comments if they feel like there > is something which doesn't align from their point of view. Anyway we > think it is important to circulate this document to collect as much > feedbacks\comments as possible before the plenary in Turin and, if > possible, arrange also some conference calls with you. > > In this respect, it would be really helpful for us to have a contact > point from each Work package acting as interface with the Wp9 and > available for a short interview. > > Sorry for bothering you with an additional document to read but this > is very short (and probably enjoyable :-) ) and we consider your > feedbacks extremely important for the future developments. > > Thanks in advance and best regards, > > Matteo Melideo > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Mon Aug 29 15:24:51 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:51 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Message-ID: Dear Task 8.4 contributors, We are quite late now with regards to the m5 dead-line for the selection of the optional assets. Here is the list of collected assets: - Database Anonymization Optional Asset (SAP) - Dynamic Security System (DSS) Security Assets (Telef?nica) - OBSCURE? Security Asset (Thales) - Secure Storage Service Security Assets (Thales) - User and profile management on demand Security Assets (DT) - Morphus (INRIA) It is urgent to discuss about the feasibility of such asset and their place in the next version of the deliverable. We also have to specify the roles and the tasks of each partner in this task. Here is a doodle poll to choose a date and a time for a telco meeting : http://www.doodle.com/8cvpfimf8gx2im9s I hope that all the concerned partners will be present to this meeting, otherwise we may skip some assets. Thank you Best regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Wed Aug 31 09:57:15 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:57:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Task 8.4 contributors, For now Wednesday afternoon (today) at 16:00 is the most suitable time for those who answered to the poll. @Julian are you able to join this call at the today ? @those who did not answered please answer this morning, otherwise we will organize another call next week but we should ask to postpone the deliverable dead-line. Confirmed participants: - Slim (SAP) - Wolfgang (DT) - Jean Yves Marion (INRIA) - Guillaume Bonfante (INRIA) Agenda for this meeting: 1 - Reminder of the objective of this Task 2 - round table for the status of the different assets 3 - Decisions and action points. Here is the information for the telco bridge https://sap.emea.pgiconnect.com/i054572/ > Conference Number: > Germany, Frankfurt: +49 69 71044 5469 > USA, New York: +1 347 366 9560 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 3351 7095 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > France, Paris: +33 1 70 99 47 97 > India, Bangalore: +91 80 6127 5003 > Italy, Milan: +39 02 3041 3122 > Japan, Tokyo: +81 3 5767 5575 > Singapore, Singapore: +65 3103 1095 > Switzerland, Zurich: +41 43 456 9880 > UK, London: +44 20 7959 6788 > Participant Code: 8832991069 Thank you Regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com From: fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of TRABELSI, Slim Sent: lundi 29 ao?t 2011 15:25 To: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Importance: High Dear Task 8.4 contributors, We are quite late now with regards to the m5 dead-line for the selection of the optional assets. Here is the list of collected assets: * Database Anonymization Optional Asset (SAP) * Dynamic Security System (DSS) Security Assets (Telef?nica) * OBSCURE? Security Asset (Thales) * Secure Storage Service Security Assets (Thales) * User and profile management on demand Security Assets (DT) * Morphus (INRIA) It is urgent to discuss about the feasibility of such asset and their place in the next version of the deliverable. We also have to specify the roles and the tasks of each partner in this task. Here is a doodle poll to choose a date and a time for a telco meeting : http://www.doodle.com/8cvpfimf8gx2im9s I hope that all the concerned partners will be present to this meeting, otherwise we may skip some assets. Thank you Best regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Wed Aug 31 16:07:24 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:07:24 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, The telco numbers changed recently, please try these numbers To join the meeting: https://sap.emea.pgiconnect.com/i054572/ Audio Conference Details: Conference Number(s): Germany, Frankfurt: +49 69 2222 10764 Germany: 0800 588 9331 Toll Free US/CAN: 1-866-312-7353 China: +400 120 0519 France, Paris: +33 1 70 70 17 77 India, Bangalore: +91 80 6127 5055 India: 000 800 1007 702 Ireland, Dublin: +353 1 247 6192 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 9839 Switzerland, Zurich:+41 43 456 9248 UK, London: +44 20 3364 5639 UK: 0800 368 0635 Participant Code: 2359361896 Sorry Regards Slim From: fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of TRABELSI, Slim Sent: mercredi 31 ao?t 2011 09:57 To: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Dear Task 8.4 contributors, For now Wednesday afternoon (today) at 16:00 is the most suitable time for those who answered to the poll. @Julian are you able to join this call at the today ? @those who did not answered please answer this morning, otherwise we will organize another call next week but we should ask to postpone the deliverable dead-line. Confirmed participants: - Slim (SAP) - Wolfgang (DT) - Jean Yves Marion (INRIA) - Guillaume Bonfante (INRIA) Agenda for this meeting: 1 - Reminder of the objective of this Task 2 - round table for the status of the different assets 3 - Decisions and action points. Here is the information for the telco bridge https://sap.emea.pgiconnect.com/i054572/ > Conference Number: > Germany, Frankfurt: +49 69 71044 5469 > USA, New York: +1 347 366 9560 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 3351 7095 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > France, Paris: +33 1 70 99 47 97 > India, Bangalore: +91 80 6127 5003 > Italy, Milan: +39 02 3041 3122 > Japan, Tokyo: +81 3 5767 5575 > Singapore, Singapore: +65 3103 1095 > Switzerland, Zurich: +41 43 456 9880 > UK, London: +44 20 7959 6788 > Participant Code: 8832991069 Thank you Regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com From: fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of TRABELSI, Slim Sent: lundi 29 ao?t 2011 15:25 To: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Importance: High Dear Task 8.4 contributors, We are quite late now with regards to the m5 dead-line for the selection of the optional assets. Here is the list of collected assets: * Database Anonymization Optional Asset (SAP) * Dynamic Security System (DSS) Security Assets (Telef?nica) * OBSCURE? Security Asset (Thales) * Secure Storage Service Security Assets (Thales) * User and profile management on demand Security Assets (DT) * Morphus (INRIA) It is urgent to discuss about the feasibility of such asset and their place in the next version of the deliverable. We also have to specify the roles and the tasks of each partner in this task. Here is a doodle poll to choose a date and a time for a telco meeting : http://www.doodle.com/8cvpfimf8gx2im9s I hope that all the concerned partners will be present to this meeting, otherwise we may skip some assets. Thank you Best regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slim.trabelsi at sap.com Wed Aug 31 18:19:46 2011 From: slim.trabelsi at sap.com (TRABELSI, Slim) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:19:46 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-security] [Minutes] Task 8.4 Assets Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, The partners who attended the meeting - Richard (TRT) - Wolfgang (DT) - Slim (SAP) Main issues: - The asset "User and profile management on demand" from DT is too rich to be just an optional service. Most of their functionalities are mapping with the requirement of task 8.2. Some overlapping features with the assets in 8.2 - OBSCURE: waiting for finalization of the consortium agreement to share this asset. Has also some overlaps with 8.2 assets (XACML access control features). One idea is to propose a sub-set of the features to be deployed as optional security services. - There is no decision concerning the assets proposed by the partners who were not able to join the call. ACTION: organize a second call with the rest of the partners. - ACTION: raise the issue, related to the overlapping between some assets from different tasks, to the entire WP8. We have to think about swapping some assets from a task to another. - WARNING: due to the vacation period, we are not able to take all the decisions related to task 8.4 before mid of September ! we may ask for a dead-line extension for the deliverable m5. Thank you Best regards Slim From: fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of TRABELSI, Slim Sent: mercredi 31 ao?t 2011 09:57 To: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Dear Task 8.4 contributors, For now Wednesday afternoon (today) at 16:00 is the most suitable time for those who answered to the poll. @Julian are you able to join this call at the today ? @those who did not answered please answer this morning, otherwise we will organize another call next week but we should ask to postpone the deliverable dead-line. Confirmed participants: - Slim (SAP) - Wolfgang (DT) - Jean Yves Marion (INRIA) - Guillaume Bonfante (INRIA) Agenda for this meeting: 1 - Reminder of the objective of this Task 2 - round table for the status of the different assets 3 - Decisions and action points. Here is the information for the telco bridge https://sap.emea.pgiconnect.com/i054572/ > Conference Number: > Germany, Frankfurt: +49 69 71044 5469 > USA, New York: +1 347 366 9560 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 3351 7095 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > China: +86 400 811 8052 > France, Paris: +33 1 70 99 47 97 > India, Bangalore: +91 80 6127 5003 > Italy, Milan: +39 02 3041 3122 > Japan, Tokyo: +81 3 5767 5575 > Singapore, Singapore: +65 3103 1095 > Switzerland, Zurich: +41 43 456 9880 > UK, London: +44 20 7959 6788 > Participant Code: 8832991069 Thank you Regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com From: fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-security-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of TRABELSI, Slim Sent: lundi 29 ao?t 2011 15:25 To: fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-security] [Important] Task 8.4 Assets Selection Importance: High Dear Task 8.4 contributors, We are quite late now with regards to the m5 dead-line for the selection of the optional assets. Here is the list of collected assets: * Database Anonymization Optional Asset (SAP) * Dynamic Security System (DSS) Security Assets (Telef?nica) * OBSCURE? Security Asset (Thales) * Secure Storage Service Security Assets (Thales) * User and profile management on demand Security Assets (DT) * Morphus (INRIA) It is urgent to discuss about the feasibility of such asset and their place in the next version of the deliverable. We also have to specify the roles and the tasks of each partner in this task. Here is a doodle poll to choose a date and a time for a telco meeting : http://www.doodle.com/8cvpfimf8gx2im9s I hope that all the concerned partners will be present to this meeting, otherwise we may skip some assets. Thank you Best regards Slim ===================================== Dr Slim Trabelsi Researcher Security & Trust SAP Labs France 805, Avenue du Docteur Maurice Donat BP 1216 - 06254 Mougins Cedex, France T +33 4 9228 6345 M + 33 6 98 32 69 14 www.sap.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: