[Fiware-security] FI-WARE Task8.2 meeting

[BISSON Pascal]

Hi Robert,

See below my (best) answer to your questions.

Regards,
Pascal



De : Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:robert.seidl at nsn.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2012 11:56
À : BISSON Pascal
Cc : fiware-security at lists.fi-ware.eu
Objet : FI-WARE Task8.2 meeting


Hi Pascal,

as an outcome of today's T8.2 telco please find here some points we would like to address during our WP8 telco on Friday:

*       Partner contributions

·                                  So far we did not get any response from Orange/FT with regard to T8.2 contribution

In that case I would suggest to give Xavier Aghina a call (00 33 1 42 29 81 59). At least this what we did with Daniel to get feedback from FT-Orange on urgent questions we had in the context of D2.4. And it has worked ...

As for the rest i have an action to meet FT-Orange to discussion situation faced and improve it.

·                                  What is the status of RBAC contribution from Thales UK?

As previously stated RBAC asset is owned by Thales services and so not TRT-UK. Contact is there Benoit Bruyère (in cc) but you can keep me and Daniel in cc of your correspondence for the sake of awareness.

*       Interworking with use case projects and other FI-WARE WP's

·                                  So far there was no response on the requests you sent out to other FI-WARE WP's. How do we progress here?

That's true and this despite me reviving this demand through WPL/WPA. Do think here WPL where too busy shaping their due contributions to due deliverables (M9 D2.3, D2.4, ...). But here you can count on me to have it revived once more (will address this at next follow-up audio with Juanjo for him to put additional pressure)

·                                  Sometime ago we summarized in an Excel table the known requests from UC projects and other FI-WARE WP's. We think this was a good approach. What is the status here and how do we proceed here?

The excel table was my initiative. I'm pleased to hear you saw it has a good one. In the meantime it was set before the tracker was put in place and as such now we should first and foremost rely on the tracker and what it says. That's also why I asked each of the Task lead to keep an eye and report on progress achieved on tickets attached to their GEs (and assign to members of their team). For me this the way we can best proceed with the tracker.

*       Sample / reference application / WP10

·                                  What is the status of WP10?
Available at https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Testbed_Design#Testbed_HW_Configuration



·                                  What will they provide?

See what they propose (in the meantime do not expect to have answers to questions hereafter)

·                                  Do they provide kind of sample applications to test our enablers? Do we have to do this by our own (Slim did it already)?

As already said I do think in my view  the best approach would be to have demonstration ouf our GEs be made through one of the scenarios of one of the FI-PPP UC project. Of course we would also need to have a backup solution something to propose from our side but at Project consortium level.

*       Contributions to WP's where partners have no allocation of person months

·                                  E.g. IBM has no effort in WP2 and WP11, but there are requests for contributions. How to solve this?

Not sure there are direct requests for me requests are via Technical WPs aka Chapters so here WP8.

In any case this has to be further investigated by IBM even more than at PCC level we are discussing some re-allocation of resources from some of the partners (remember TID leaving WP8 to move its effort elsewhere ).

Greetings

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-security/attachments/20120315/988a474f/attachment.html>